Help support TMP


"WWI Naval Rules Recommendation" Topic


27 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 Early 20th Century Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the Naval Gaming 1898-1929 Message Board


1,146 hits since 15 Dec 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

preqoo16 Dec 2012 12:24 a.m. PST

Hello, iīm interesting in a st of rules for a WWI period.

I look the Figurehead Ships of Hallmark (1/6000) and Navwar (1/3000), i have not yet decided on any brand or scale until you know which rules to use.

I want represent big battles (as Jutland), but i donīt know whatīs rules working good. I search detailed battles, and from what I've read VaS Age of Dreadnought itīs very simple, and GQ3 Fleet Action Imminent and Naval Thunder are more detailed, but, Seekrieg? Or for big battles itīs very complicated?

Thanks in advance.

sillypoint16 Dec 2012 3:01 a.m. PST

VaS AoD is our ruleset of choice at the moment. It has a Igougo system of movement and firing.
I think for bigger games it is better than Naval Thunder RotB, as (NT) it has a plot movement, simultaneous system. Which could get messy with lots of ships, even with squadron movement.
However, AoD is incomplete if you want to go back to Russian-Japanese 1904. Also, there are all sorts of holes in the rules, page number referencing is not complete. It is only 26 pages of rules, the other 100 pages is on scenarios, ship stats, ideas for campaigns etc.
NT in complexity is about the same, the core set/surface action is used for pre- dreadnought to WW2.
Can't comment on other sets, although I was tempted to adapt the old Avalon Hill Jutland game- it's out there as a PDF.

Timmo uk Inactive Member16 Dec 2012 3:10 a.m. PST

I still reckon Avalon Hill's Jutland is worth a look.

Ilkley Old School16 Dec 2012 3:55 a.m. PST

My favourite are the ones by John Hammond (Skytrex) from 1973

link

picture

I still have a battered copy and will be using these rules for my 2014 centenary games.

Skytrex have a set by Davco which may well be the same set.

link

Cheers

coastal216 Dec 2012 3:57 a.m. PST

Fleet Action Imminent by ODGW is my groups choice. Good balance between complexity and playability and very intuitive to play. We've tried the others mentioned and they came across as much too shallow.

Sundance Supporting Member of TMP16 Dec 2012 6:01 a.m. PST

GQIII/Fleet Action Imminent is my choice as well. And for the same reasosn coastal2 mentioned. My other WWI naval rules are Fear God and Dread Nought by Clash of Arms (the WWI version of the Admiralty Trilogy, including Harpoon), but they are very complex and just take too long for each shot. GQIII is much more playable and provides a very fun game.

David Manley16 Dec 2012 7:43 a.m. PST

I've tried all of these (wrote one of them) and like them all. They all have very good plus points.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP16 Dec 2012 8:23 a.m. PST

Dreadnought by Ben King gives a fun game and works well for big battles. This web page may be useful for you:

link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Dec 2012 10:54 a.m. PST

Fleet Action Imminent by ODGW is my choice usually but I've been enjoying VAS-AOD lately as well.

Shagnasty16 Dec 2012 12:02 p.m. PST

Another vote FAI by ODGW. Our group thoroughly enjoys this rule set for the period.

Personal logo ColCampbell Supporting Member of TMP16 Dec 2012 12:58 p.m. PST

We have fought several large WW1 naval battles using 1:6000 scale ships glued to their Jutland counters and using the Jutland rules. They all worked fine.

link

link

Jim

preqoo16 Dec 2012 1:16 p.m. PST

It seems to be opted for FAI, but…, the rules working good for 1/6000 or best for 1/3000?

coastal216 Dec 2012 1:29 p.m. PST

FAI will work fine with any scale. Fact is, all the rules mentioned will work with any of popular scales (naval rules tend to be scale neutral).

The Young Guard16 Dec 2012 2:06 p.m. PST

FAI is my set of choice and I use 1/3000.

Not only that but the support you get from the guys who wrote it is bloody good. In fact I have requested a few ship logs on the forums and they have magically appeared!

agrippavips16 Dec 2012 10:11 p.m. PST

odgw.com/home.html

Old Dominion for FAI

preqoo17 Dec 2012 12:06 a.m. PST

Anyone know where to get the rules in Europe?

Accessories that are in the ODG page (dice and turn gauges) are needed for the game and can get here in Europe?

coastal217 Dec 2012 12:58 a.m. PST

The turn gauges come with the game (you really don't need the trick plastic ones which are only available direct from ODGW), As for what you need over and about the rules, you need a tape measure marked off in cms, a handful of 12 sided dice, and your ships. That's all. As for a source in Europe, can't help there (I'm in southern California). As an alterntive you can order the rules as a pdf from ODGW's site.

The Young Guard17 Dec 2012 9:02 a.m. PST

I bought a papercopy for Spirit Games a few years back (based in the UK) which I have now lost/lent out.

Thats all you need really apart from a ruler.

I have made little splash markers and smoke damage and sinking ship marks using odds and sods that were lying around.

The Young Guard17 Dec 2012 9:03 a.m. PST

Of topic, but

Coastal any news on the new supplement for the Northern minor navies for GQIII?

coastal217 Dec 2012 11:56 a.m. PST

"Coastal any news on the new supplement for the Northern minor navies for GQIII?"

Very soon (before Christmas). Final draft has been proofed and should be uploaded to ODGW within the next week. Will include Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland and Denmark.

The Young Guard17 Dec 2012 12:34 p.m. PST

:) YAY!

Cheers Coastal this is very good news!

afilter17 Dec 2012 12:57 p.m. PST

IMO, you cannot go wrong with Naval Thunder especially for this period where it is all about the Gun battles which NT specializes in. I use NT for Pre-dreads all the way through WWII.

warren bruhn Inactive Member18 Dec 2012 5:58 p.m. PST

I really like Fleet Action Imminent. Quite easy to use and teach the surface gunfire and movement systems. Both of the sets of torpedo procedures unfortunately put the players in the position of torpedo mount crew instead of in the position of flotilla and squadron commodores and admirals. Need a simpler faster way to play with torpedoes, but that can be developed with house rules.

I'm interested in Naval Thunder. But because another local naval warfare enthusiast in my town has them, I'm going to try playing them first before buying a copy. It's a really cheap download, however. I just wasted more money than that on fish & chips and a Guiness. On second thought, the Guiness was worth it…

The Young Guard19 Dec 2012 10:41 a.m. PST

Guiness is always worth!

I don;t no if we play the trops right for FAI but what parts are you not happy. Might be good to share ideas.

coastal219 Dec 2012 4:58 p.m. PST

"Both of the sets of torpedo procedures unfortunately put the players in the position of torpedo mount crew instead of in the position of flotilla and squadron commodores and admirals."

So your complaint is going from squadron commander to torpedo officer. Well, the same is true of gunnery combat.

No admiral picks a ship's gunnery target, that's what the ship's gunnery officer is for. But in any game, you (the player) do pick the target and resolve gunnery combat. The only difference with torpedoes is that the procedure requires picking the bearing and tracking the torpedoes to their targets over several turns (gunnery gets resolved the same turn; something about shells moving at several thousand feet per second verses torpedoes moving at several thousand yards per hour). So whether you're firing a battery of 16" guns (where you're playing the gunnery officer) or a mount of 21" torpedoes (where you're playing the torpedo officer), it's the same thing.

That said, torpedo combat has (and always will be) a pain in the butt of naval game design. Given that torpedoes move at the speed they do (in the 30 to 40 knot range), you're always going to need some method of plotting their bearing and movement over several turns (or to the end of their endurance). That's just the nature of the beast. Some rules have the launch and hit resolved in the same turn (NT does), which grossly misrepresents the way torpedo combat actual works (unless the range is very close (ie, the torpedo can arrive at the target the same turn), there is no way you can justify resolving a hit immediately that realistically wouldn't occur until some number of turns later, no matter how much hand waving by the designer). FAI's simplified system takes a lot of the grief out of the process (there are some rules that are infinitely more painful). But I haven't found anything that is both quick and realistic (and given the nature of the problem, probably won't).

warren bruhn Inactive Member19 Dec 2012 5:29 p.m. PST

FAI gunnery procedure does NOT put the player in the position of the gunnery officer. Admirals in command of divisions and squadrons did order distribution of fire of their own division or squadron vs. the enemy line. There were signals for this (and Beatty's signal for distribution of fire at Dogger Bank was misunderstood). The player in FAI does NOT estimate range, bearing, rate of change of range, rate of change of bearing, etc. vs arrival time for salvo groupings of shells. The player in FAI merely names the target and rolls for possible hits that might occur during some minutes of firing after measuring the distance.

FAI's torpedo procedures (both of them) require the player to plot a course for the torpedoes of each of his ships in the hopes of intersecting the model of an enemy ship at the end of the turn. That's not a great simulation, because the real issue is whether or not the torpedo collides with the enemy ship (in real scale, not the distorted scale of the model vs the range scale in use). Picking a bearing for the torpedoes could be the job of a destroyer captain. And players who are playing 3 to 6 destroyers might actually want to pick the bearing for the torpedo attacks of each of their ships. But FAI seems to be aimed at somewhat larger actions. If I'm involved in a larger action that deals with a division or squadron or more of dreadnoughts then I don't want to be picking the bearing of torpedo attacks by individual ships. I especially don't want to do that on the theory that location of the enemy ship model at the end of the turn vs that bearing is what's relevant.

Maybe if I played a lot of WW2 cruiser and destroyer night actions and really got into plotting the torpedo spreads, then I might get over the negative feeling I have about being given that task in FAI. "Supremacy at Sea," a set of WW2 naval rules by some fanatics in Vancouver, British Columbia, has a very elaborate torpedo procedure. I think the same elaborate procedure is used in the upcoming WW1 version of those rules.

coastal219 Dec 2012 7:39 p.m. PST

"FAI gunnery procedure does NOT put the player in the position of the gunnery officer. Admirals in command of divisions and squadrons did order distribution of fire of their own division or squadron vs. the enemy line. There were signals for this (and Beatty's signal for distribution of fire at Dogger Bank was misunderstood). The player in FAI does NOT estimate range, bearing, rate of change of range, rate of change of bearing, etc. vs arrival time for salvo groupings of shells. The player in FAI merely names the target and rolls for possible hits that might occur during some minutes of firing after measuring the distance."

Within the bounds of rolling the gunnery resolution you are actually concerned with all the inputs mentioned (they may be adjustments to a die roll applied to a table, but they're still there, nonetheless). In your model, the squadron commander would (and should) have no concern for such inputs; that's that's gunnery officer's concern. But it is also functionally impossible in a game. And it would make for a rather boring game, at that.

"FAI's torpedo procedures (both of them) require the player to plot a course for the torpedoes of each of his ships in the hopes of intersecting the model of an enemy ship at the end of the turn. That's not a great simulation, because the real issue is whether or not the torpedo collides with the enemy ship (in real scale, not the distorted scale of the model vs the range scale in use). Picking a bearing for the torpedoes could be the job of a destroyer captain. And players who are playing 3 to 6 destroyers might actually want to pick the bearing for the torpedo attacks of each of their ships. But FAI seems to be aimed at somewhat larger actions. If I'm involved in a larger action that deals with a division or squadron or more of dreadnoughts then I don't want to be picking the bearing of torpedo attacks by individual ships. I especially don't want to do that on the theory that location of the enemy ship model at the end of the turn vs that bearing is what's relevant."

Well, unfortunately, as I stated above, the problem doesn't have a 'quick fix' (oh that I wish there was one). And the position of the target(s) relative to the bearing IS relevant since this is a solution that predicts an interception of the torpedoes with the target at some point several turns in the future. SOMEONE (the player) HAS to make the call as to what bearing those torpedoes are going to be launched. Like it or not, that is the essence of torpedo warfare.

From my own experience with various rules, FAI is about the quickest to resolve. In one game I recall a torpedo launch by close to 3 full flotillas at a battleline approx 10k yds away. The total procedure went quick since the only thing you have to do is mark the launch point, the size of spread and the bearing arc (and the gauge makes that simple). The player involved (yes, one player) marched down the line of DDs and, machine gun style, had it done in no time.

And finally….

Some gamers have the notion that the role of the player (be it a BB squadron CO, or a armor company CO, or a ACW regt CO) should be limited to just those decisions and inputs that those commanders at that level had. Well, that's a bald faced myth. Because there would be no way to resolve ANY combat if that commander did not step out of his role (our tanks don't fire by themselves, our regts don't go hand to hand on their own and our BBs don't fire on their own).

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.