Help support TMP


"Victory at Sea, Bigger Battle revised" Topic


7 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two at Sea

Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Victory as a Campaign System

Can a WWII blockgame find happiness as a miniatures campaign system?


Featured Workbench Article

Back to Paper Modeling - with the Hoverfly

The Editor returns to paper modeling after a long absence.


Featured Profile Article

Axis & Allies at Gen Con

Paul Glasser reports from the A&A Miniatures tournament.


Featured Book Review


1,088 hits since 20 Aug 2007
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Gold Dragon Hobbies20 Aug 2007 10:16 a.m. PST

TheMackster here using the store's account.

Much bigger battle played Saturday night after we kicked all the customers out (but whimpier battle report).
We shoved the 6x4 and 6x3 tables together for a great 6x7 sea battle. Found out very fast that gave their longer ranged ships way too much extra time to pound us with.
We played 6 pts Battle level, 3 pts/player on each side with teams of two.

Short form, the Allies (Chris & me) got hammered!

Jay & my son Malcolm played Japanese * Germans respectively against Chris's USN and my Brits. They took newer(?) longer ranged guns on their ships against our older BB's
and were pounding us outside our own range pretty hard even before the dreaded electric U-boats appeared and began wrecking havoc. They started nailing my DD's and left us pretty defenceless against the subs, one of my J-class destroyers vanished in a single hit with a magazine critical.

Not to mention the fact they took 1 German and 1 Japanese carrier against our 2 Essex class ones. They had superior fighters and we had better and more dive bombers. The massive air battle lasted most of the game until the bombers outnumbered the surviving fighters and finally got thru the caps and made their attacks on both sides BB's.

Suffice it to say we got hosed big time and barely dented their capitol ships while they crippled one of our older Washingtons and one of my Cruisers, and shot up my destroyers pretty bad. My own Queen Elizabeth BB only had a couple points of damage on it but was being hemmed in by 3 German subs.

We called it a night at 11pm due to family commitments and awarded the victory to the Axis players. Rematch tomorrow night where my Brits will be howling for blood.

Great game!

BTW- of interest, we ignore the flank speed special action as well as the rule limiting only 3 stands of aircraft being able to attack a ship.

Hundvig Fezian20 Aug 2007 10:55 a.m. PST

Just seeing the words "German carrier" makes me chuckle…

Gold Dragon Hobbies20 Aug 2007 11:49 a.m. PST

@Hundvig
LOL, yeah. Hey, next time if they want the graf Zeppelin we're going to take free 1943 upgrades for all our carrier planes. It'd be nice to match their fighters for once.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian20 Aug 2007 12:18 p.m. PST

Older Washingtons? The Washington & North Carolina were much more modern ships than anything the Germans had and the Yamato's were the only thing the IJN had that wasn't designed in WW1.

It still sounds like a fun game.

Charlie 1220 Aug 2007 9:07 p.m. PST

"superior fighters" ?? We are talking about F6Fs (and more of 'em) vs mid war A6Ms and navalised ME109Es, right? And the Axis are better? Hmmmmmmm… What's wrong this picture…..

TheMackster Fezian21 Aug 2007 2:09 a.m. PST

I'll have to check the rulebook to see which planes Chris was using but I know both the me-109's and the Zeros had +4 dogfighting compared to our fighter's +2. (he took the standard loadout the carrier's come with)

hhmm? maybe he wasn't using Washintons then? All I remember is his BB's had 35" range and mine had 33" while at least the German ships had 45" range.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian21 Aug 2007 7:52 a.m. PST

Ranges are a bit of a problem in that VAS simply takes the theoretical maximum, never mind that it was impossible to spot. The US 16/45 on the Wasington's could fire a much heavier shell with an effective range equal to the Germans and with much better radar fire control. The Bismark's had IIRC, a 1750 lb shell with 8 tubes whereas the US had a 2700 lb shell and 9 tubes. At range, a Washington should pound Bismark to scrap 2 out of 3 times and a Scharnhorst should simply roll over and die.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.