"Gasp! An actual naval wargame batrep" Topic

Just for a change, an actual naval wargame fought using Subs and SAMs.

Here is the batrep
link

I do not know too much about modern naval war gaming, but would like to give it a try. I have read a few battle reports on TMP and they all seem to be the same.

Side A locates the enemy and attacks, side B uses counter measures. Missiles hit, ships sink, survivors counter attack, Etc.

No terrain, no formations, no morale, decisions are no brainers.

Pluses-The ships are cool, the technology space age, and the " what if's" could be tomorrow's headline. The games are quick, so you can play a few in an evening.

The players are keeping it simple using small forces without air elements (other than choppers) and subs?

Interesting in hearing your comments.

The trick is not to be seen until you find the other guy and launch on him.

Sounds about right.

I think modern naval combat is very similar to those old, western gunfights, where the first person to draw and fire has the advantage, usually, unless they miss.

Of course, missile defenses may take down some, which is why you want to fire them in decent sized salvoes, especially if you believe you may not survive long enough to launch a second wave of your own.

Modern naval combat is pretty lethal.

The real trick is to come up with interesting scenarios, by throwing in some neutral ships, and/or false targets, to force the commanders on each side to have to use proper judgment, and not just fire on the first blips they detect on the horizon.

Having to report back to higher command, that you've sunk a passenger ferry, or a fully loaded cruise ship would not be fun.

Without wishing to hijack Collins' thread, in response to Otto's point the problem is that rules such as "Harpoon," "Shipwreck" and "Subs and Sams" is that they all micromanage, with a separate dice throw for each weapons system and in some cases each detection system. The end result is that the only way that you get playable games is to reduce the numbers count and this lack of numbers leaves you with only the sudden death scenarios that Otto speaks of and makes things like formations and morale redundent.

The micromanagement is a strange trait of naval wargamers, most WWII rules are even more detailed than "Shipwreck" for instance. I think it comes of thinking of a ship as one piece of equipment, rather than as one combat unit. For instance if you are playing a set of WWII or Modern land rules set at company level, you wouldn't dream of modelling every shot, by every one of the 16 guns in the tank company, you would model the effect of the whole company's fire on another company.

The answer is to keep individual ships but to model their effectiveness as a cohesive unit rather than as a collection of weapons and detection systems. This then allows you to field whole task forces in which the individual ships are component parts.

I've been working on a rule set that does this for several years and they are still very much a work in progress, but I'm convinced that the approach is right if you want good games and good simulations for modern naval warfare without using a computer. The test of the rules, of course, is to use historical, or historically based scenarios to see if you get a plausible result.

hksw.org/DEFCON%203.htm
link

Cheers,
Bertie

While I agree that most naval games are far too much micromanaging (the captain generally does NOT give orders to each and every sensor, for example), but I think you really do need to model individual missiles/torpedoes. Modern heavyweight (ie, 21") torps are one-hit kills for anything smaller than a carrier, and so are most anti-ship missiles. Also, ship captains will individually order weapons, particularly on subs.

So I think that the most realistic gaming (in terms of having the player making the same decisions as the Captain of a vessel) uses a single, conglomerate sensors roll for detecting targets, possibly a second roll to ID a target (you use more sensors to ID than to simply detect), and individual weapons fire.

What you really need to do is make the most important and exciting part of the game the detection and ID steps, with weapons fire almost an afterthought.

I think Lion nails it:

"What you really need to do is make the most important and exciting part of the game the detection and ID steps, with weapons fire almost an afterthought."

I share the same feelings. I am fascinated by modern naval wargaming, but I am not quite sure whether, in most cases, it provides an enjoyable gaming experience. The stage of actual shooting is sudden and lethal, and somewhat anti-climatic; on the other side, many rules made the early detection stages terribly boring, and very difficult to manage because of the complexity of sensor systems. I think the trick, and the way forward, is to come up with rules that make detection and ID'ing fun and exciting. I am still looking for my personal modern naval gaming Graal.

I think a two-level game system is really what is needed. An operational-scale component which is similar to the detection and air phases of the Victory Games 'Fleet' series boardgames and then a tactical combat resolution component using miniatures.

Where most exisiting miniatures games handwave or ignore the long-range detection systems (sigint, maritime patrol aircraft, RORSATs, OTH radar, etc) they really need effective incorporation into the operational-level game. That doesn't need to be a simulationist incorporation – design for effect is fine here, as the detection rules in the 'Fleet' games illustrate.

A playable operational-level component gives reasons and objectives for the tabletop encounters. Then some decent detection rules in the tactical game bring out further the experience of modern naval warfare.

Thanks for the comments.

Bertie, I enjoyed your blog, nice miniatures and a fun game.

A couple questions, why strike the supply ship and not the FDR?

Detection- how do you sort out or include all the assorted civilian vessels and aircraft?

My point is, I would want to fire everything at the FDR, its the greatest threat. I guess that some attacks maybe drawn
away to other ships in the area.

Gamer tactic; surround high value target with low value ships.Is that a carrier battle group?

Otto,
The way I evaluate it, the chance of the missiles on a bearing only launch picking out the high value target in the enemy task force depends upon their "generation"
(i.e. how modern they are, e.g. a Kh 22/ AS 4 "Kitchen," would be 1st generation, whilst an AGM-84L Harpoon Blk 2 would be 4th generation)and whether the missiles receive adequate mid course guidance. With higher generation missiles mid course guidance is less necessary.

Target selection is determined as follows (a "C3" dice is a dice marked 1,1,2,2,3,3.):

THROW C3 DICE, + GEN OF MISSILE, +2 IF FIRER SUCCESSFULLY LINKS MID-COURSE GUIDANCE.
RESULT: 7+ = FIRER'S CHOICE OF TARGET. 6 = RANDOM AMONGST LARGEST TYPE OF TARGET. 5=RANDOM AMONGST TWO CLOSEST TARGETS. 4 = CLOSEST TARGET. 3 OR LESS = MISS

These were 1st generation missiles so the best that could have been hoped for with mid course guidance was a total score of six on a dice throw of three. This this should have given a random choice between the two largest targets in the group, the Seattle and the Independence, (not the FDR.) As luck had it though all the salvoes homed on Seattle. With average luck at least half of the salvoes should have homed on Independence. The Soviet player was frothing at the mouth at his dice throwing.

Detection: In my rules radar detection for surface targets only gives size. This also allows scope for "blip enhancers", floating dummies, chaff seduction and stealth design. ESM will give you their emissions, depending upon their EMCON. Against aircraft even size discrimination is difficult, c.f. the Vincennes tragedy.

"Gamer tactic; surround high value target with low value ships. Is that a carrier battle group?"

Not a "gamer tactic" but a real life one… Admiral Woodward's dispositions on the day of the "Sheffield" attack were, from "up threat": 1st. Air defence line of missile destroyers, 2nd.ASW line of frigates, 3rd. line of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries,4th. carriers with their "goalkeepers."

Having said that I understand it was not American doctrine to consider the Sacramento class AOEs as expendable and put them in higher risk positions than their carrier, since if you lost the AOE the high speed freedom of manoeuvre and ability to sustain operations of the task force would also be lost.

Cheers,
Bertie

Bertie,
Thanks for the quick reply.

Technology is a big part modern warfare. How you rate the systems can be difficult and I think most people would be amazed at what will develop in the next 20 years.

Sometimes the systems do not perform as advertised and events can play out in unexpected ways.

I wonder about a swarm of low tech craft at close range.
Have you done Iran vs. Iraq 1980's?

Otto,
I haven't done Iran vs Iraq in the 1980s for lack of information about their naval engagements. The air-to-surface and surface-to-surface "Tanker War" is well documented but not the surface-to-surface engagements that enabled the Iranians to constrain the Iraqi surface units. The interesting thing about the Iranians of course is that they have fired more surface-to-surface Harpoons in live combat than anyone else… most at the Iraqis, one at the Americans.

We have done Operation Praying Mantis, which is the second link in the post above. This went much according to history with the drilling platforms being razed, the Joshan firing it's last Harpoon and then being trashed, and the Sahand being hammered. We spiced it up by making the Iranian Air Force a lot more aggressive and giving them their three destroyers, the ex-Battle class and two FRAMs that had been armed with Standard SSMs, but American command and control, ECM and firepower carried the day with no surface losses.

I have a rule for unreliable weapons systems such as the British Tigerfish torpedoes and the American "3T" SAM systems before they got their "get well" programmes and say that this can be extended to untried systems to reflect hidden, unanticipated, problems; or even at random to reflect poor maintenance.

Boghammars and rocket-equipped Boston Whalers are based in groups of four or less to represent "swarms". They are then treated like flights of aircraft or salvoes of missiles, with aggregate weapons factors that are reduced as they take losses.

Cheers,
Bertie

Bertie,

Thanks, for your answers, I have a better understanding of modern naval wargaming.