| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 532
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
You know what that sensation is..?
You know what i feel coming in the air..?
It's infectious...
Its 'Negative SA Fever' boys and girls!
Tee |
|
 Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:43 pm |
|
|
Posts: 93
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
first off i like the make the 2 that were fine have no negative SA and make the rest have the cant shoot for 1/6th of the time thats fine by me, i just want to make the 2 as good as they should be. i think that this is going the way of the shinano some want it as it was and some just want it as it was planed,but this has 2 sides we can make the 2 that were done and then make the class. that means that it will have a limit on the good one but thats ok with me if we can not come to an agreement on this thing. however i just want to know how many ships there were that worked fine with out testing? 
i agree with rengokuy, it was not as bad as the 1/6 would make it. |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | My point is we are creating an 'uber sub' that will be very difficult to stop with existing ASW stats. There is no doubt these would have been tough cookies if they had actually made it into war service, but they did not. So my concern is to keep them from totally breaking the game. If there is a way to do that without a negative SA I will be fine with that. But limiting year doesn't 'cut it' for me because gamers rarely use year limits and many do not use class limits. Even if they do use class limits it will be argued there were over a hundred of them. |
In the same spirit, my suggestion was to simply avoid making a class card and only make a card for the two that were sent to patrol. Otherwise, a suitably high cost would do just as well.
In terms of stats, I fully agree with all of EK's suggestions.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:15 pm |
|
|
Posts: 6599
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If Germany build them in numbers AND get them all combat ready in right time the allied convois would had a serious problem.
Just give them a jammed Torpedo SA after rolling a 1 on the d6 the torpedo value decreases a bit.
Another claim what about range 3 torpedo in this case, the almost
10 year older I-19 submarines can fire at range 3 too.
_________________
YVAN EHT NIOJ ! |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
As near as I can tell the only range 3 torpedoes in the game should be the LLs. Also, acoustic homing torps were not typically used at extreme ranges I believe, too many U-boats sunk by thier own torps (how'd that be for a negative SA)
_________________
 |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:59 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | My point is we are creating an 'uber sub' that will be very difficult to stop with existing ASW stats. . |
Maybe I'm wrong, but just because a unit is good is no reason to penalize it.
Negative SA's really don't add flavor, they ruin pieces. (excpet slow) In fact the only negative SA created by this forum was for oilers "Highly Flamable"
Point is, Hood, KGV, Taiho, and if this gets it, are worthless. For no reason really. Did this submarine actually loose it's ability to operate offesnivly for 1/6 of the time. No.
Did the KGV loose a turret on it's own 1/6th the time. No
Did Taiho Explode instantly after being hit by a torp. No
Did Hood explode instantly...well yes, but Fatal Flaw is really worded badly. Rather than perpetuate that, people need to accept that Hood was designed with only 1 set in mind.
We seriously need to stop thrown Negative SA's out unless they really capture an event in an accurate manner. (Yes that includes Taiho no exploding instantly).
Limit Masked guns, or unmask guns, whatever to ships that had constrained firing arcs and difficult training a full broadside. (Espana pops to mind right away)
I really don't hate SA's or making ships as historically accurate as possible, but there's a point when you just need to sit back and look at what is being suggested.
What is literally being suggested here is a submaine not functioning as a submarine for 1/6 of the time.
If a unit is good, then it should be fairly priced as such, not bashed down with a pointless negative SA.
1944 year, and a fair price for the states.
It's honestly my greatest fear that RB will actually see our custom cards with one of the outlandish SA's and actually think it's a good logical idea. Thus ruining the piece for everyone.
rant over. |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have an old card for this if anyone is interested.
_________________
 |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rengokuy wrote: |
What is literally being suggested here is a submaine not functioning as a submarine for 1/6 of the time.
If a unit is good, then it should be fairly priced as such, not bashed down with a pointless negative SA.
|
I'm in agreement here. Also, negative SAs are really a pain to cost.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:05 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't suggest negative SA's lightly, but they are a part of the game and that is just that. I don't think they should be common, but I disagree that they ruin ships. They are a way of reflecting their capabilities within the stat system in unique ways. Real captains and admirals had to work around the vulnerabilities and limitations of their ships.
If you guys insist on 'Quiet Sub' then back the armor down to 3/6/2. Rolling 4 hits with a -1 penalty and typical ASW values of 3 to 5 dice is too hard to hit. Then we can discuss eliminating the Teething Pains SA.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:53 am |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: |
If you guys insist on 'Quiet Sub' then back the armor down to 3/6/2. Rolling 4 hits with a -1 penalty and typical ASW values of 3 to 5 dice is too hard to hit. Then we can discuss eliminating the Teething Pains SA. |
For some reason I didn't notice the 4/6/2 armor with the 'Quiet Sub' thing. So... basically the only thing sinking this sub is another sub? Or a Saumarez paired with a Halifax... and that's pretty much it.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:06 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Asbestos wrote: | | weedsrock2 wrote: |
If you guys insist on 'Quiet Sub' then back the armor down to 3/6/2. Rolling 4 hits with a -1 penalty and typical ASW values of 3 to 5 dice is too hard to hit. Then we can discuss eliminating the Teething Pains SA. |
For some reason I didn't notice the 4/6/2 armor with the 'Quiet Sub' thing. So... basically the only thing sinking this sub is another sub? Or a Saumarez paired with a Halifax... and that's pretty much it. |
That is my main concern. If we tone it down a bit I am okay with dropping the 'negative' SA.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:55 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I've gotta say, the no negative SA bias on here transcends the idea of not wanting to be 'unfair' to a unit. Vessels whose most famous moments can when they spectacularly exploded are eligible for a negative SA. Vessels that were so riddled with defects that out of a hundred built only 2 worked are eligible for a negative SA. Weeds didn't suggest that they have a 1 in 50 shot at working, but rather a 5/6. That doesn't seem so horrible. Or, make it a -2 to torpedo attacks, or something if you think it's too stiff. With or without the SA it's still the best sub in the game, and by the historical record, not really deservedly so.
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:14 am |
|
|
Posts: 93
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
i see yalls point about it needs the negative SA but how about we just do the 4 that worked and leave the rest alone. besides who would spend more than 80 on the same sub any way. four is Pliny for me and then some. this way we will not have so many varying arguments.then if some still want the type xxi then we can make a card for that and it can have some negative SA.but can we please do the four that worked first. 
the biggest negative thing with this u- boat is that it will cost a lot,people will think twice before getting one let alone three or four,also its not like it cannot be killed any other sub can kill this thing just as easy as they could u-510 or I-19 or any other axis sub. |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:02 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN freek wrote: | i see yalls point about it needs the negative SA but how about we just do the 4 that worked and leave the rest alone. besides who would spend more than 80 on the same sub any way. four is Pliny for me and then some. this way we will not have so many varying arguments.then if some still want the type xxi then we can make a card for that and it can have some negative SA.but can we please do the four that worked first.
the biggest negative thing with this u- boat is that it will cost a lot,people will think twice before getting one let alone three or four,also its not like it cannot be killed any other sub can kill this thing just as easy as they could u-510 or I-19 or any other axis sub. |
All of the 'real' cards in WaS are named ships. There is no limitation on how many you can use. Even the optional class limits rule only applies to classes with four or fewer vessels. Any other class limits are strictly a local house rule. If we make one card - named or not - a player can technically use as many as they want to pay for.
Anyway, that is not a reason to make an out-of-balance unit.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:18 am |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Isn't the 4 armor already accounting for the awesome evasive abilities of this sub? Why not 4/6/2 with Elusive Quarry, Submerged Shot, and great Torpedoes.
Maybe throw 'Fast Sub' in for kicks...
I just realized that this is nearly exactly what ND proposed on page 1.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:52 am |
|
|
Posts: 93
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
cost 18
year 1944
torps/5/3/3
armor/4/6/3
elusive quarry
submerge shot
close the gap. if this unit is within range one of an enemy ship at the end of the sea movement faze this unit may move in to the same sector as the enemy ship.  |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:10 am |
|
|
Posts: 543
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I still think the cost should be 20-21. For 2 pts less you get a archerfish. That thing is easly worth 1 1/2 or maybe 2 subs. Especially if the stats are as above.
_________________
Take a peek at my tradelist:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about8921.html |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:34 am |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN freek wrote: | cost 18
year 1944
torps/5/3/3
armor/4/6/3
elusive quarry
submerge shot
close the gap. if this unit is within range one of an enemy ship at the end of the sea movement faze this unit may move in to the same sector as the enemy ship. |
Armor is 4/6/2, 3 Hull Points is too much for the tonnage.
Not sure what the is for, its still the best sub in the game! Its damn hard for it to get hit in the first place, and when its crippled its still worth as much as an Ambra. Not too shabby.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:05 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, I totally disagree that this sub class should not get a 'negative SA'. The technology was simply 'not ready for prime time', but I am tired of arguing about it. Here is my suggestion:
U-2511 (Commissioned Sept. 1944, or U-3008 Commissioned Oct. 1944)
Cost ???
Year 1944
Torps 4/3/2
Armor 4/6/2
SA's:
Elusive quarry
Submerged shot
Submerged Sprint - Once per game, at the beginning of your Sea Movement step, you can give this unit +1 speed for this turn.
I am not good at costing. I will leave that to RAEVSKI once we agree on the stats.
I have done some reading online and in 'Hitler's Navy' by J. Showell and the torpedoes were simply standard G7aT3 models with the LUT programmed 'pattern' system attached. If the torpedo failed to find its target by a certain distance a simple computer programmed in a standard 'ladder' search pattern the torpedo would travel to try to hit a target until it ran out of propulsion. According to several sites it rarely worked because there is a lot more ocean than targets and there was not much range left for the search pattern.
These torpedoes had a standard range of about 8,500 yards at about 30 knots. This is about the same as the standard British Mark VIII submarine torpedo (7,000 yards at 41 knots) and US Mark 14 sub torpedo (9,000 yards at 31 knots). The torpedo warheads were about the same explosive power of British and US torpedoes. Italian torpedoes had a range of about 10,000 yards at 30 kts. The Japanese Type 95 Model 1 had a range of 13,000 yards at 45 knots. It could travel further at much higher speed.
The German acoustic homing torpedoes - T5b and T11 - were not on the Type XXI. They had a very poor hit record and only had a range of about 6,500 yards at a slow speed of 22-24 knots. Going faster interfered with the homing gear which was listening for the propellers of the target ship. The also had warheads that were about 30% smaller/less powerful than 'standard' torpedoes.
Bottom line, the range of the LUT equipped G7aT3 torpedo on the Type XXI was no better in range or explosive power than the standard torpedos used by everyone else except the IJN. It is 'theorized' that the advanced sonar aiming systems on the Type XXI would have improved the percentage of hits. But they never had a chance to find out. I have bumped the Range 0 to 4 to give it the benefit of the doubt.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:03 am |
|
|
Posts: 543
|
|
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:07 am |
|
|
|
