| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject: Big guns vs little targets
|
 |
|
Yesterday, I engaged in a rather long winded discussion with a very innovative individual (Evilkobra), and while we did not agree on some things ( actually we agreed on a lot of things, but the need to stay in WaS paramaters won out ), there were several ideas discussed that I think would work. This is one of them.
Richard Baker has already changed the rules in WaS so that Battleships firing main batteries at Destroyers only score hits when 6's are rolled. Battleships are also restricted from firing at Destroyers at range 0 ( Gun depression problems ) and at extended range ( too small a target at too long a range ). I suggest we keep all of that.
Before I go into the additions to this rule, I'd like to get some of the nomenclature right.
Battleships in DR are all ships identified as follows:
Battleship/Dreadnought, Battleship/Battlecruiser and Battleship/Pre-Dreadnought
Cruisers in DR are all ships identified as:
Cruiser/Armored Cruiser, Cruiser/Protected Cruiser, Cruiser/Light Cruiser and Cruiser/Scout Cruiser
Destroyers in DR are all ships identified as:
Destroyer and Destroyer/Torpedo Boat
Note: I am aware that there are other types of vessels than those that are on this list. When we get to rules covering them we will add them to this list.
The following deals with main gun batteries only. All other batteries are unaffected.
Destroyer main batteries hit all targets on a 4 +
Cruiser main batteries hit Destroyers on a 5 +
Cruiser main batteries hit all others on a 4 +
Battleship main batteries hit Destroyers on a 6
Battleship main batteries hit Cruisers on a 5+
Battleship main batteries hit all others on a 4+
A simple way to look at it is to imagine Battleships as large size
Imagine Cruisers as medium size
Imagine Destroyers as small size
If the main guns from a large ship fire at a smaller (never larger) size ship than add the difference in size increments to the number needed to hit. So, since the base number to hit in WaS is 4 or higher, then firing on a ship one size smaller than you would require die rolls of 5+ to hit and firing on a ship two sizes smaller would require 6's.
These rules additions require no card changes.
I have tried to make this as understandable as I could.
I am now ready for the noose. 
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
 |
|
 Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
it is an interesting rule and see why it has been talked about, I just like my simple sam rules.
if it goes through I will not be using those rules.
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
 |
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Perhaps then you would post these simple sam rules. I think what I have posted is very simple.
Main Guns on:
Battleships need 4's or better to hit Battleships
5's or better to hit Cruisers
6's or better to hit Destroyers
Cruisers need 4's or better to hit Battleships or Cruisers
5's or better to hit Destroyers
Destroyers need 4's or better to hit everything
That IS pretty simple.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:23 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I understand them just fine, I just like my traditional simple sam rules.
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Which are ?........
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:41 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| lotharlutjens wrote: | | Which are ?........ |
ummm
the WaS rules?
 
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:57 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So for you, everything works just fine using WaS rules. That is very interesting.
Do you accept Richard Baker's rules on Battleships needing 6's to hit DD's ?
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:03 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| lotharlutjens wrote: |
Do you accept Richard Baker's rules on Battleships needing 6's to hit DD's ? |
yes that is what I said as in WaS rules.
6s only hit against destroyeers and have been play testing them like that since day one, but have been switching between 6s = 2 hits and 1 hit against destroyers.
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:05 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, so it is just too far a stretch for you for Battleship Main Guns to need 5's or 6's to hit cruisers ?
Or for Cruiser main guns to need 5's and 6's to hit Destroyers?
Please respond with a reason behind your thoughts.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:28 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Has nothing to do with a "strech"
I just like the WaS rules, just thought they were great, not perfect but like them.
Why is my fav. color blue? Don't know, just like it.
Just think the WaS rules has a nice flow, the suggested rules are easy, just do not like them.
A tad bit easier to remember? Yes, but not the reason why.
You can go about it the way you want but I will not play with them as such, just like I do not use the $ cost system. 
Also feel there is a bit more dumb luck involved, at least with battleships. Why would I ever take 1 or at least large amounts that suffer a -1 to hit a cruiser with 6 or 7 armor would be tough
At range 3 a BB fires @ 5 armored cruiser
Rolls: (12d6)     
Cruiser returns fire
Rolls: (6D6) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:33 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Cruiser attacks
Rolls: (5d6) 
Just rolling some dice online and at my desk with various units
Just seems like it will make games longers than what they should be and/or allowing cruisers to stand up to them toe to toe, some of the bigger cruisers can and might, but their strenghts are through their speed, and in swarms, not additional luck.
I like quick fast pace games, one of the reasons I never like playing anything above 200 points, I lose interest in a game after an hour or 2, whihc is why I fell in love with WaS and AAM, unlike most war games it is fast and quick.
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:46 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for your input. I think maybe you should start your own project. We obviously don't see eye to eye on how things should work and I for one do not wish to have to waste my time trying to change things as little as possible for gamers such as yourself (The KISS camp) while trying to balance out more realistic things with the Historical gamers. I desperately try to compromise with both camps and then you come at me with a rebuttal such as I just like the simple way WaS handles things. You are not the only player playing the game and I must work to satisfy all players as best I can. Yesterday I discussed things with a very knowledgable Historical gamer and game designer, I threw out probably 80% of his ideas because I knew it wouldn't fly with gamer's such as yourself, not because I disagreed with him. I found most of his reasoning very sound indeed. So perhaps it is best that you just do your thing and I will do mine. Good luck with your exact clone of WAS.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
What about battleship secondaries that are as large as, say, cruiser guns. We'll be keeping those without penalty? This probably works well as far as a compromise between easy and makes sense, but especially the pre-dread's have some pretty large secondaries.
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
|
Illuminated Insanity
Posts: 4532
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: You can go your own way (Fleetwood Mac)
|
|
|
| lotharlutjens wrote: | | You are not the only player playing the game and I must work to satisfy all players as best I can. |
Really? not the only one?
I do like how you cater to the majority, just like the poll between point cost system and $ cost system.
| Quote: | | So perhaps it is best that you just do your thing and I will do mine. Good luck with your exact clone of WAS. |
Exact clone? I don't think so, not even close.
_________________
Always Flying. Always Fighting. RIP JIMMY.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:17 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok, I did not see your last post where you actually explained that you just like quick games. Your right, if everytime a battleship shoots at a cruiser and it is likely to vital it, it will make for a quick game. It took 6 hours for two British Battlecruisers to bring down two German Cruisers in World War One. In World War II Bismark was constantly being shadowed by a couple of Cruisers yet they survived. In WaS my feeling is Battleship gunfire is to devastating to smaller ships, they were maneuvarable and much harder to hit (especially at farther ranges). Wish I could convince you but obviously I cannot. Best of luck to you.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:21 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
For the Record Jesse, I was fine with both dollar ammounts and points, I could have gone with either system. As for the decision to go with dollar ammounts, I was not the one to make that call. You are misinformed.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 312
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
The idea of bigger guns firing at smaller targets has merit. There are other games that have this feature also. I do have a question about DN gunfire targeting a predreadnought. Many of these preDNs are shorter &/or smaller than many armored cruisers. Would they be a little harder to hit by DN guns in the same way as an armored cruiser?
_________________
Darn the Torpedoes; full speed ahead!
Victory is blasting hostile ships out of the water before they blast you out of the water... |
|
| Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Btw, the decision for $ or point costs has not been taken yet. I don't understand why you think otherwise.
My alternative to Lothar's requires a tiny change on each card. Instead of BB Main, Cruiser Main, etc. , I suggested Big/Medium guns depending on their caliber. I think it would be more accurate, but it would add more work for Aquarius, and that's not desirable at all.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:35 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
hmm... Are we splitting hairs here guys? Is a destroyer only harder to hit at longer ranges due to its smaller size and narrower beam? Any ship with decent manueverability can chase the salvoes. And I might mention that near miss was was very dangerous to the unarmoured tin cans.
After saying that, if we think we have to change this, I would propose the followin hybrid.
Ships, split into two categories based on main main guns.
Heavy : 8" guns and above
Light : 7.9" guns and below
Heavies vs heavies: no penalties
Heavies vs Light: sixes count as one success
Light vs Heavy: no penalties
Light vs light: no penalties
Secondaries and Tertiaries suffer no penalties.
I base this grouping on the eight inch guns and above being slower firing, caseless rounds. DD's, Light Cruisers, and Torpedo Boats having a smaller size, thus harder to hit added to less rounds being fired, minus being vulerable to a near miss... well, it is open to debate and it is my one cent, I don't know if it is worth two...
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:22 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2182
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
We are discussing something very similiar Drittal. We will discuss this later after we iron out some other things. Nice to have your input again.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
