Help support TMP


"General Quarters 3: FAI" Topic


9 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Naval Gaming 1898-1929 Message Board


733 hits since 22 Jul 2011
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

evilleMonkeigh23 Jul 2011 5:25 a.m. PST

Do many others on these boards play GQ3: FAI?

When I first discovered GQ a dozen or so years ago, I was impressed with its elegant simplicity and ability to mimic realistic battles. It was sort of the 'benchmark' naval game. Comparing FAI to its rivals (Victory at Sea, Naval Thunder for example) I don't think it can lay claim to the simplest – it seems to have drifted into the 'rivet counting' realm. For me, it appears to be more complex than either.

Working out arcs and firing each individual turret, with a far more elaborate SDS with individual turret hits etc (which took a fair bit of puzzling out compared to the intuitive elegance of GQ I & II) was a layer of detail I happily did without previously.

Further to that, I discover I have to buy GQ3 for another $50 USD for complete air and sub rules.

There obviously has been a massive amount of loving care and research gone into the rules, but at $50 USD a pop, it compares unfavourably with very similar ruloebook productions from 2HW, TFL, and Iron Ivan games who retail for $20-30.

I guess the questions I have for experienced GQ3 players is:

Is it worth persevering with? (I've only test-played the rules so far) Is it better for big fleet battles than the original GQ1/2? Is the extra complexity 'worth it?'

Also – is it worth shelling out $50 USD (which buys a small fleet of ships) for GQ3? Or should I check out wargamesvault for cheaper, faster-play pdf offerings?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian23 Jul 2011 6:29 a.m. PST

I been playing GQ3 and GQ3 FAI since it came out and really enjoy what I consider the right mix between detail and playability and it was GQ1 that hooked me into gaming back in the 70's so I really like those rules as well (and they are still selling ). You do not need GQ3 to play GQ3 FAI.

It is not better for resolving really big fleet battles in a reasonable (3-4 hours) time ( with over 30+ ships per side) for that, GQ1&2 or a set called Battle Stations/Battle Stations are far quicker.

I find the extra flavor of the actual individual ratings for the guns to be a highlight and other than that, the SDS turret arcs aren't a big deal except for a few WW1 wing turrets and those had to be accounted for in GQ2 as well. You don't fire individual turrets, the number of tubes still works out to a lesser number of dice for a single roll. I'd recommend coming to a Con and playing all three systems and deciding. GQ3 is always played at the HMGS Cons and I've seen Naval Thunder now and then. I have my own set of issues with VAS (without the David Manley changes it borders on the inaccurate to the point of fantasy) but if you ask around, I'm sure someone plays it.

Ken Portner Inactive Member23 Jul 2011 8:21 a.m. PST

What does the FAI mean?

Shagnasty23 Jul 2011 8:36 a.m. PST

Fleet Action Imminent. As stated, you do NOT need GQ 3, itself an excellent set of WW II rules, to play FAI. It is not rivet counting but doesn't lend itself to Jutland unless you have a lot of knowledgeable Commodores, a large area and more than an afternoon. We are very pleased with both sets at our local group.

Grizzlymc Inactive Member23 Jul 2011 4:59 p.m. PST

I have played a lot of GQIII. For WWII size battles I find it to be the perfect balance of playability vs detail.

If you are looking at Jutland on a wet afternoon – forget it. You will need a long weekend, HUUUUUUUUUUUGGE numbers of D12s and each commodore needs to have 6 odd actions under his belt. Oh and they will need to know their ships.

But other than Jutland, most WWI actions are doable in a long afternoon.

evilleMonkeigh24 Jul 2011 4:51 a.m. PST

I may try Battlestations – GQ1/2 bogged a little with large rnumber of ships, and on feedback, GQ3 does not improve on this…

:-( I liked the old 3 dice per battery!

Grelber24 Jul 2011 4:15 p.m. PST

Would GQ in any of its incarnations work well for small force, four destroyers, for instance?
Grelber

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian24 Jul 2011 6:22 p.m. PST

4 destroyers per side for experienced GQ3 players would play out in less than one hour with a satisfying accurate feel.

warren bruhn07 Jan 2012 5:21 p.m. PST

Hmm, old thread. But still want to chip in and say that I like Fleet Action Imminent. It hits the right balance of playability and detail for me too. I think it's definately worth the money. I hope to eventually play Jutland in an all day game at a convention with a lot of players, probably in 2014. I agree that it would help to get as many players familiar with the rules as possible before running such a big battle. And working out the fastest possible method of resolving torpedo attacks will also be necessary.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.