"Jutland Project - a mutual challenge" Topic

Anybody care to join me in a mutual challenge to complete the total OOB for Jutland by May of 2016, including every torpedo boat, destroyer, cruiser, zeppelin, and float plane, in whatever scale you want?

The reason I ask is that I need some mutual cheering on to get this project completed. I've already based and painted most of the dreadnoughts and armored cruisers. Now I need some encouragement to finish basing and painting the rest of the dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, light cruisers, torpedo boats,and destroyers.

My chosen scale is 1:2400, and I've already acquired or have on order almost everything that I need for the complete OOB. Because WTJ plastic printing is now filling in many of the missing links that I couldn't fill in metal or resin, I think it will be possible to complete the project by May of 2016. I'm hoping WTJ will produce some zeppelins, aircraft carriers, seaplanes, and British "C" classes of cruisers.

Anybody else up for this kind of insanity?

I will have to not bite. I am still working on my 1937 "Pacific Jutland" stuff.

1:6000 is the plan for me. I already have the battlecruisers done, I may have to sell some things to raise the funds for the rest. However, armed with an airbrush and some suitable paints, it should not take particularly long to do.

Did it in 1/3000 for the 80th anniversary. Ended up in the NWS anniversary event at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich which used 1/6000 minis so my massed fleets never did all take to the table together

You beat me to it. I was just about to start this discussion. The 100th anniversary of Jutland is 17 months away. I was sure I'm not the only one planning to recreate it. Let's compare notes, hopes, fears, problems and solutions.

I have a start on the Jutland fleets in two scales. Even worse, I have two packs of the Jutland HSF pack from Thoroughbred, because I'm stupid and I bought it twice by accident. <sigh>

About a decade ago I bought about half of the High Seas Fleet plus some Grand Fleet battlecruisers and dreadnoughts at a flea market, all 1/2400 scale C-in-C models, all fully painted. This year I began expanding that collection so I could recreate the battles and "what ifs" of 1914/1915. However, I did some calculations, and math militates against using this scale for Jutland. In 1/2400 scale, the Jutland GF dreadnought line of battle will be roughly 9 feet long, the HSF roughly 7 feet, even with the models crammed too close together to reduce scale distortion and table space. Add in all the supporting divisions of cruisers and destroyers hanging around the area, and each fleet probably has a footprint the size of a bedroom. I don't know how to play that game. I love the 1/2400 miniatures, and I want to play with them, but I think Jutland is just too much. If anyone has good ideas, I'm all ears (er… eyes?).

I do plan to recreate Jutland, but in 1/6000. I long ago figured out how to fit big battles in this scale onto available tables. Early in 2014 I created enough 2 foot interlocking foam tiles using War Artisan's technique to make a 6'x20' surface. The tiles give me a gridded surface convenient for calculating deployments when encounters happen, and let me scroll the table in any direction so there's no danger of steaming off the edge of the world.

So… where do I find the complete OOB? Are there any published sources that actually list all the ships that were present?

- Ix

YA wrote – "So… where do I find the complete OOB? Are there any published sources that actually list all the ships that were present?"

British and German orders of battle for Jutland can be found in various reference sources. I recommend the appendix of Holloway H Frost's book, "The Battle of Jutland", which gives both in great detail. This book is downloadable from the web (try archive.org). It is also a good book on the battle and worth reading; Frost was a USN officer of that era, worked for the US Office of Naval Intelligence and studied the battle quite closely from both sides, including interviews with direct participants.

Re gaming Jutland (my Number One with a Bullet interest in wargaming), I have given a great deal of thought to how it might be played out. The most obvious challenge is that doing Jutland on a one-to-one basis represents a MASSIVE undertaking – in space, in time, and in physical numbers. It is IMO just not realistic to attempt to play it as a single game. Assuming that such a large event would be associated with a gaming convention, my thinking has run along the lines of playing it out as an orchestrated "micro-campaign" in a series of separate sessions: [1] the initial encounter between the BC forces, followed by [2] the engagement between the battle-lines and perhaps [3] the night disengagement action (if you choose to pursue it).

I have also toyed with the idea of ditching the idea of playing out the battle as a discreet wargame altogether and simply doing individual "vignettes": the BC action; Hood's 3rd BCS drama; the loss of Defence; a select portion of the night action.

FWIW.

It was very encouraging to read your remarks about use of the foam tiles. We use a similar system involving 18 x 24 inch plexiglass sheets (terribly heavy to carry in quantity, but less warping and a nice oceanic sort of surface gloss). It has proven totally successful in eliminating the "edge of the world" problem and I do not know why more naval gamers do not use it.

Best holiday wishes to all, BTW.

B

I have two packs of the Jutland HSF pack from Thoroughbred,

Figurehead perhaps?

Sorry, yes, Figurehead. Brain fart.

- Ix

Let's talk about rules. How do you plan to play this big a battle?

My tentative plan is to do the classic two-part system, a map-based search phase generating tactical miniatures battles. This has a few problems:

• Players tend to make serious mistakes that create lopsided battles that are no fun to play.
  
• Map plotting is slow and usually paperwork intensive.
  
• The real life German plan included luring the Grand Fleet into attacks by submarines, and it was only dumb luck that didn't happen. Would that be any fun?
  

I have tried on occasion to come up with a way to use the maps from the Great War At Sea system by Avalanche Press without paper plotting or a lot of rules, but I've failed. It's easier to just use the GWAS system, because it's well-sorted, playtested, and internally consistent. I'd be much happier if I could move the plotting to a computer, but AP have not yet released any computer moderation systems or officially allowed/assisted any.

For the tactical rules, I will probably use GQ2, but am debating using FAI instead. I've been working on making FAI play faster, and if I can get it to play fast enough, it's a superior game. I have years of work into making GQ2 as streamlined as I can get it, but I haven't made that much progress with FAI yet.

I'm still debating about ground scale. My current preferred naval ground scale for the age of armored battleships is 500yd/inch. I already play FAI at this scale, and I'd play GQ2 at this scale if it didn't mean throwing out all my work. I originally set up to play GQ2 at "centimeter scale" (1 inch in the book rules means 1 cm on the table), and created all my range finding sticks, SDSes, QRCs, and other stuff to work in this scale.

- Ix

If you had an umpire (which I don't since I'll probably be doing it solo) you could plot the positions of each fleet on a map using the normal Fleet Action Immanent rules for movement, then using FAI weather rules and spotting rules the umpire could determine who can see the other side at any time. Only those ships which are visible are deployed on the table. This would allow lots of maneuvering but much less table space. If I remember correctly, the maximum range at Jutland was about six miles, which is six foot in FAI.

I've got both fleets.
I used ShipBase III computer moderated rules.

Does ShipBase III handle strategic movement? I always assumed it was just a tactical game.

- Ix

Already done it in 1/6000 (including the Zeppelins, and the seaplanes). Makes for an impressive sight. And I use FAI (with some mods for quicker play, mainly with the bizillion TBs and DDs).

Doing the whole OOB in 1/2400 might be a stretch (and some might say daffed. But then doing it in 1/6000 is pretty daffed, too!)

And I use FAI (with some mods for quicker play, mainly with the bizillion TBs and DDs).

If ever there were a time and place to elaborate, you've stumbled into it…

Care to talk about your mods? I would love to read about them.

- Ix

The complete OOB is online here:

gwpda.org/naval/jutob.htm

I agree that refighting the battle in miniature with all ship models as part of one large face to face game doesn't make sense. Maybe a special event in the UK or an event at the naval wargame convention in the US would be the only way to get enough dedicated players and space to do it that way.

Earlier this year I watched a friend run a Jutland size battle at a regional convention using 1:6000 scale, with just the dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts. Players came and went over 5 game periods of 4 hours each. But players wanted to play other games too, so only two of us stuck around for most of that big event. Obviously 1:6000 scale is the only sensible scale for attempting this, but the small size of the models was less appealing than the other eye candy around the convention.

I'm wondering if it would be better to have some GM's with digital cameras and computers, with the players on their own computers just seeing photos from the perspective of their own flagships. What are those fuzzy enemy ships out there anyway? Sighting reports, damage reports, orders, and errors in reporting could all be conveyed by the GM's. And 1:2400 scale ship models would work as well for that.

I started collecting 1:2400 scale WW1 ships a little more than 12 years ago when a guy in Arizona sold me a massive lot of C-in-C models, including almost all of the British and German dreadnoughts. I've been adding to the collection ever since, using C-in-C, Viking Forge, GHQ, Panzerschiffe, and now WTJ.

Now that WTJ has jumped into the game I'm able to get models that fill some of the gaps in the other lines. After sending in my last Panzerschiffe order yesterday, I'm expecting WTJ to provide the rest. In particular, I'd like to see WTJ produce HMS Canada, HMS Neptune, the "C" classes of British cruisers, the mine laying version of HMS Abdiel, HMS Tipperary, aircraft carrier HMS Engadine, and some zeppelins.

I started out basing my ships on 1/4 inch (~3mm) thick basswood. Not sure I'd do that if I was starting over. But since I started out that way, I'm going to order a lot of 3mm thick plywood Litko bases to finish this project.

After that, it's off to look at digital cameras…

Do you really mean 1/4 inch thick basswood? That is a THICK base, esp. for 1/2400 scale ships. Since you also said 3mm, I bet you meant 1/8 inch.

I decided to keep my 1/2400 scale ships unbased. I admit I occasionally see really nice basing jobs that make me reconsider, like these or this, but after all is said and done I like the look of the vessels sitting directly on the playing surface better.

Of course, my ships suffer some damage as a result. Thick bases help protect the model (and especially delicate rigging) from human fingers.

- Ix

Maybe a special event in the UK or an event at the naval wargame convention in the US would be the only way to get enough dedicated players and space to do it that way.

I might be able to muster a big enough cadre to pull it off at Kublacon here in the SF Bay Area. Your profile says you're in Oregon – you could come down for that too.

Players came and went over 5 game periods of 4 hours each. But players wanted to play other games too, so only two of us stuck around for most of that big event.

Yes, that's a long game.

Earlier this year I tried to run the Scarborough raid as a 2-game scenario, and if health issues hadn't foiled two attempts in a row, I'm pretty sure it would have worked. I may try the same thing with Jutland, at Kublacon. I can do the BC action Fri night, the battlefleet encounter Sat night, and the "disengagement" phase on Sunday. That fits the attendance graph of the convention, too (some people on Fri, most on Sat, a few left hanging around on Sunday). If I keep the games down to about 4-6 hours, I may be able to keep players through 2 or all 3 games. To be sure, this is not my dream of running a full map-based mini-campaign, but it would probably work a lot better as a game. I have so far been underwhelmed by my previous attempts at map-based strategic campaigns.

- Ix

Oops! Yes, I meant 1/8 inch thick bases.

I started using these bases because that's what a friend of mine was using, and because the gun barrels on my C-in-C models are really thin. If there was no base, or a super thin base, then the players would have to mash the models with their fingers. And without bases we might need tweezers to pick up the destroyers.

There's a lot of naval wargamers in the Pacific Northwest. Usually several naval wargames are played each year at the Enfilade NHMGS annual convention at the end of May in Olympia, Washington.

At one time, I planned to do Jutland with 1/6000 on my 7' x 8' table with a numbered 2" hex grid added to it. I have in the past used a similar hex grid for my micro-armor games.

The hex grid allows both repositioning the battle to the center of the table, and also would remove the time limit on the overall game. This second benefit would result from the ability to record where everything was on the hex grid, so the table could be cleared off between sessions.

I differed from Warren by planning to represent DDs in pairs with a single model and combined GQ SDS for each pair. Cruisers and above would be individually represented.

Unfortunately, this project is currently on hold.

Mark H.

There's a lot of naval wargamers in the Pacific Northwest. Usually several naval wargames are played each year at the Enfilade NHMGS annual convention at the end of May in Olympia, Washington.

Maybe it's time for me to make the trek to Enfilade.

- Ix

I seem to remember many years ago a set of rules published in Miniature Wargames (or it could have been Wargames Illustrated) called '15 minute Jutland'. Never seen these again online, but they used a 15 minute turn, destroyer flotillas were treated as units, rather than individual ships, and the mechanics were brutally simple. BUT; they were designed for a Jutland re-fight with the emphasis on making decisions when it isn't clear what's going on. I might have a copy which I'd be happy to scan, providing I'm not infringing anyone's intellectual property

I'm interested in reading "15 Minute Jutland rules."

1 minute Jutland rules -
Throw 1D6:
British win on a score of 5 or 6.
Germans win on a score of 1.
Any other score is a draw.

Question – What exactly is the point/interest/desirability of gaming out such a complex huge battle with rules that probably approximate checkers in terms of subtlety? I just don't get it.

B

I guess you'll have to read the rules to find out.

I'm skeptical too. Does 15 Minute Jutland accomplish anything that the Avalanche Press GWAS game Jutland does not? There's no particular reason one couldn't use miniatures with the GWAS tactical system, but nobody really wants to.

FWIW, it looks like 15 Minute Jutland was published in Miniature Wargames Magazine #88, according to this listing at Noble Knight Games.

- Ix

Sorry folks; can't find them. MW c.1990 sounds about right though.

As I remember it was for multi-player play with moves on maps which were then transferred to the table (no grids, so players messaging their positions were often inaccurate, meaning Jellicoe knew the Germans were 'somewhere' ahead, but not exactly where). A lot of emphasis on command and control.

"Question – What exactly is the point/interest/desirability of gaming out such a complex huge battle with rules that probably approximate checkers in terms of subtlety? I just don't get it"

No worries that you don't get it, but it depends on what you're trying to achieve. The point of using simpler rules for a big battle is that to use more complex rules is unworkable. The interest/desirability? Well, I suppose it comes from making different decisions to those we'd normally make in a miniatures game – as Jellicoe I want to be thinking about how to deploy a massive fleet so as to achieve the greatest number of guns on target, not how many individual guns on HMS Chester are still firing, or how many fires are raging on Black Prince. I want to thinking that I want Evan-Thomas to hem in Hipper's battlecruisers THERE and THAT flotilla to attack the middle of the enemy's line with torpedoes… how many torpedoes? I don't care: I'm a bloomin' Admiral – let the Captains decide that detail! (i.e. by averages and dice rolls).

In general I like to make decisions no more than 2 levels below my level of command – If I'm Langsdorf at the River Plate I'm happy – and indeed want – to direct damage control parties and gunnery. If I'm Jellicoe then I don't really want to be making decisions below squadron level.

But everything's a compromise – at the moment I'm playing Victory at Sea: loads wrong with it, but my seven year old can grasp the mechanics and is enjoying playing. That's my compromise for the moment: happy with that.

Hi Boz – I can accept your point (especially if you are also introducing a young son to the hobby). If truth be told, I myself spent many hours with Dunnigan's Jutland game spread across the living room floor of my parents' house.

I further understand and agree with your comments about the "two levels down limit" of direct control. In a way, however, this leads to the nub of the issue from my point of view. By way of fair disclosure, I fall more on the simulationist side of the wargamer spectrum; my main interest is using wargames to explore and better understand historical battles and warfare. If one would equate a sea battle to a piece of jazz music. The admiral would be the band leader who chooses and arranges the piece of music; his subordinates are the musicians, each with a different instrument to play, whose responsibilities are to play in tune, to the correct rhythm and to make sure that their solo riffs fit into the song – i.e., the song is a group effort whose quality is reliant upon the coordinated effort of a number of individuals. It is different when a single musician is in sole control of all the music; there are no coordination issues. With a single individual is running every element in a wargame, it is not possible (IMO) to reproduce the effects of internal command friction and so on that inevitably define the course of a big battle.

FWIW.

B

Cheers Blutarski, love the musical analogy – and agree with the difficulties of removing the player's omnipotence.

There's an interesting thread elsewhere asking the question about how little naval wargames have moved on in the last 40 years, compared to land gamers. There are plenty of 'gamey' land rules out there, but a lot of innovation too, and land gamers are quite used to units not doing as they're told with morale and comms rules to govern these situations.

I suppose the difficulty is that not following orders in a naval situation is a lot more subtle – ships will not generally flee the battle area when they have been directly ordered to stay, but how do you recreate that 'sort of' following an order, such as Cpt. Stange's, of the Lutzow, caution at the Battle of the Barents Sea? Similarly accounts I've read of the first Heligoland Bight feature the difficulty RN Flotilla Leaders had in STOPPING their subordinates from charging off after anything that belched smoke.

What is needed is a set of rules that adequately reflects the gradual loss of control during a fast moving engagement but also introduces an element of artificial intelligence so that just because a squadron or flotilla is not under direct control it will still undertake 'logical' operations which may – or may not – be what the player wants.

Such rules are I'm afraid beyond me to come up with. But they are not necessarily beyond some of the more talented and innovative rule writers out there. It's just a pity they're not writing naval sets!

Hi Boz,

I have been an avid and committed naval researcher cum wargamer cum rules writer for all those 40 years you have referred to. Modeling "the human factor" in a naval wargame IMO cannot be easily done by arbitrary rules.

First off, a real world subordinate will IMO tend to follow the program so long as he is within visual sight and signaling range of his commander. The human factor issue in real life principally manifests when the subordinate is operating beyond the immediate watchful eye of his superior and must rely upon himself to make decisions. In gaming terms, that implies either a separate table in another room where the admiral cannot "manage" his subordinate, or a separate game altogether in a different time/place.

Secondly, a lot of the human factor issues have historically arisen as a function of a different interpretation or a misinterpretation of orders or doctrine. Gamers do not like to write orders, much less lengthy tactical doctrine texts.

Thirdly is the fear of the unknown. A commander in real life very often was faced with incomplete and sometimes non-existent intelligence data about his opponent and no guarantee whatever as to what might or might come over the horizon or loom out of the mists at any given point in time. Most tabletop games politely lay everything out in plain sight from the start; nothing is veiled and the situation is clear right from the start.

Fourth is the propensity of gamers to treat their ships as disposable playing pieces to be exploited to extinction on the assumption that the side with the last ship afloat will "win the game". This is a real pet peeve of mine.

The closest I ever came to approaching a "real world" environment of tactical uncertainty was in a PQ17 campaign I ran many years ago. The German commander had a fairly powerful force of pocket battleship + two cruisers + a couple of DDs making their way north in very thick weather (visibility was well under 10k yards). The convoy commander, who had been alerted by an earlier aerial recon report, decided to send out his close support group of four cruisers southward in a scouting screen to attempt to intercept the Germans at a good distance away from the convoy proper. By dint of some very good guesswork and course plotting, the scouting screen ran right down the track of the German force. The German commander first had two cruisers appear out of the mists on his left flank. After he deployed to engage them, another British cruiser appeared dead ahead of his column. When he adjusted his deployment to deal with that new threat, the fourth cruiser showed up on his right beam. This flustered the German commander so much that he turned the entire force around and retired after barely engaging. In the post-campaign wash-up, I asked him about his decision to retire and he said that he did so because he just could not be certain what else was out there. He had kept search radar off to avoid detection and he never thought to turn it on after he had been discovered.

That's the kind of human factor I seek in a naval game (in fact, any wargame), but it is not everyone's cup of tea.

To sum up this lengthy post, my thinking is that the best way to reflect "the human factor" in a game is by using a number of humans and putting them into stressful and uncertain game situations.

FWIW.

B

Yep – got to agree with that.

Fighting to the last ship as a matter of course (as opposed to having no alternative because you've been unlucky or out-witted) is likewise something I don't like to see.

For me the simplest antidote to this is to tie games together in a form of a narrative campaign – it doesn't need to be a full campaign; just a handful of games where the outcome of one determines the available forces for the next. Players then tend to be more cautious naturally, being willing to withdraw in the hope of a more favourable situation the next time.

Most tabletop games politely lay everything out in plain sight from the start; nothing is veiled and the situation is clear right from the start.

I'll go one step farther and say that the vast majority of miniatures gamers dislike games where the forces are obscured. I made a large set of nice "bogie" markers out of craft sticks (two sizes, nice wood stain, ID codes in a fancy font made with rub-on lettering), but when using them to somewhat obscure the nature of the opposition, I've actually had players quit after a few turns of maneuvering because they "just want to shoot something". Wargamers are not (usually) military commanders, and it's very difficult to compel them to behave like one.

Fourth is the propensity of gamers to treat their ships as disposable playing pieces to be exploited to extinction on the assumption that the side with the last ship afloat will "win the game". This is a real pet peeve of mine.

So far I haven't found a way to fix this. I've had more than one campaign end at the first battle because there isn't enough left afloat for a second battle. I'm also usually the only one disappointed by this.

There's also a tendency among wargamers to declare defeat as soon as things start to turn sour. I try to engineer games so that the victory conditions make it possible for the underdog to win the game even when they lose the battle (e.g., VP scores represent the subsequent strategic situation, not the tactical situation in front of you), but many gamers ignore victory conditions, attack as if frontal assault is the only option, and give up as soon as the losses mount a bit.

- Ix

I'm only just now getting back into gaming after many years away, so I'm not a member of a club at the moment and I've not observed gamers in action for quite some time.

I have been toying with ideas, like using disproportionate VPs to favour one side, making the other side more cautious. I've also been thinking about random (but historical) orbats, meaning that one side could find far stronger (or weaker) opposition than expected. For me this is what wargaming is all about – having to decide whether it's best to engage or lay smoke and get the hell outa dodge, but it sounds like we're in a minority from what you're saying lx.

I've just finished my first game of Der Weltkrieg ( spwgame.com ) , it's a hex and counter game that does the entirety of the Great War at the divisional level. It was a massive commitment, taking 10 months to do ( thankfully on Vassal, so I did not have to leave the huge map set up ) . For my next play through I'm considering how to integrate the game with a full north sea naval campaign. Doing this could mean the result of 10 months effort could ultimately turn upon a single naval engagement. On these grounds, players really should take the survival of their ships extremely seriously rather than throw them away at the first opportunity!

If the naval operations are just an extension of the boardgame, you may not have a problem. Hex & counter wargamers are a more cereberal breed than miniatures gamers. They typically have at least a clue how to play, an inkling how to win, and a willingness to make a backward step if it gets them closer to winning the game in the long run.

- Ix

For me this is what wargaming is all about – having to decide whether it's best to engage or lay smoke and get the hell outa dodge, but it sounds like we're in a minority from what you're saying lx.

I think so.

In my observation, miniatures gamers have to be treated as if they have short attention spans. A game can't last more than 4 hours, shooting has to start by turn 2, the end of the game has to have a clear winner, the pre-game setup has to be fast and easy, and these days the threshold for a game that is "too complicated" seems terribly low. This is all doubly true at conventions, where gamers hope to play more than one game each day, and prefer fast-moving, lighter gaming experiences.

Another negative influence on long or involved games is that there are now so many rules systems on the market that it's almost impossible to find players experienced with any one of them, so every game is guaranteed to have clueless players and require a lengthy "learn to play" session at the beginning. Inevitably, many of the "genre feel" rules have to be cut or streamlined to accommodate such players.

- Ix

YA's comments largely reflect my own experience at conventions. Where are the high-quality, motivated gamers nowadays?

B

To sum up this lengthy post, my thinking is that the best way to reflect "the human factor" in a game is by using a number of humans and putting them into stressful and uncertain game situations.

I completely agree, and most of my games (naval and land, every era) are designed like this. I see multi-player games as the most enjoyable way to simulate C3 problems, and at least as accurate as any complex set of C3 rules.

- Ix

Um, sorry to resurrect this particular Lazarus, but I found the 'quick reference' cards I drew up from the original '15 minutes Jutland'. They're not complete, but the rules are there – mixed in with some campaign rules obviously lifted by me from GQ some 20-25 years ago.

Once I've made sense of them and scanned/transcribed them I'll post in a new topic.

Jonesey

Interesting thread chaps!

I've been mulling over the thought of a Jutland project for next year and have some questions to put to the TMP collective.

I've toe-dipped in WW1 Naval, using Naval Thunder: Clash of Dreadnoughts, limited to Coronel/Falklands, in Navwar 1/3000 (completely distracted by Pre-Dreads, Yellow sea, Tsushima, but we digress…).

I've nearly finished Geoffrey Bennett's Naval Battle of WW1 (most enjoyable!). On reading the Jutland chapter, what struck home were the ‘non-combat' factors influencing the outcome, Room 40 intel (or not), poor visibility, poor/ineffective C&C, etc. I'm wondering how these factors could be modelled on the tabletop? (Appropriate doffing of cap to the Yellow Admiral)

While I like the CoD game engine (particularly for a Club night 3hr slot) it does suffer from the ‘form two lines and have at ‘em with everything on the table top' approach. I'm thinking along the lines of deploying blinds for spotting, pre-game fleet OOB adjustment, squadron deployment/arrival, etc.

Any examples of a good WW1 naval campaign system/framework?

Stepping up from pre-dread to WW1 the NT:CoD range bands get significantly longer (up to 42"), so I'm considering either smaller models and/or small range bands. (Table size limited to 8' x 4').

For Jutland, I'm most likely to game aspects of the battle as separate engagements (BBs & BCs) than try to game all at once.

Being UK-based, my go-to ship scale for 30+ years has been Navwar 1/3000, but I've noticed Magister Millitum offer 1/6000 Hallmark, albeit at +£100 premium compared to Navwar. Worth the investment? x4 smaller? How to make best use of them?

Cheers!
Wilf

Apologies, but I've problems with my scanner so I've not been able to scan in the rules I mentioned.

But, on the subject of rules I've been using 'Battle stations! Battle stations!' for WW2 recently and I've enjoyed them. They are designed for big engagements and record keeping is minimal: interestingly they include morale rules.

In the rules intro a future development for WW1 is mentioned but I don't think they ever materialised. Anyone else know if it did?

Nick

BSBS for Jutland is a good idea. I should look into that.

I spoke the original author of BSBS (Paul Cooper?) a couple times about expanding it to WWI, but that never happened. Last I heard (unconfirmed) he seems to have become dissociated from the rules during the many long years en route to publishing, so I think it's safe to say it never will.

The system is streamlined enough that I don't think too many (or… any?) rules modifications would be necessary, so adjusting for WWI may be a simple matter of generating the new stats for an earlier period.

- Ix

On reading the Jutland chapter, what struck home were the ‘non-combat' factors influencing the outcome, Room 40 intel (or not), poor visibility, poor/ineffective C&C, etc.

You mean all the fun parts.

I'm wondering how these factors could be modelled on the tabletop?

The most common way to tackle this problem is with a multi-player map campaign like those mentioned above (AH Jutland, GWAS, the GQ2 campaign rules, etc.). Multiple players introduces coordiation problems, weather rules limit ranges and reduce chances of encounters, special rules (or encounter roll DRMs) reflect admiralty intel coming over the wireless, etc. The downside is that a long and paperwork-intensive map campaign can easily result in extremely lopsided encounters, or worse, both fleets missing every chance of an encounter and going home without a battle. This isn't unrealistic (battles like Jutland almost happened many times, but only actually happened once), but it's not why we spend money and time making nice-looking miniature ships.

I've toyed with writing a decision-tree style scenario generator, but haven't gotten far. My idea was that it should be granted that the two sides are going to meet and fight, but the players should be presented with some broad decisions that together determine the specific parameters of the encounter(s) – relative positions and bearings, map position where they meet, current weather, etc.

- Ix

'You mean all the fun parts' – Absolutely!

A map campaign would be a challenging approach and I have certainly given it some thought (e.g. using 1805 for some Napoleonic naval action), and will give it further consideration.

Agree: the presumption of tabletop wargaming is that both sides turn up willing to fight with the perception they can succeed, otherwise why would they?!

A scenario generator influencing the game balance & set-up factors would add extra depth & spice to the gameplay.

Food for thought… thanks!

Wilf

Just picked up on this thread I tried desperately to not get involved in this being happy with my 1:2400 Battlecruiser and below fleets.

I said no, too expensive, what if we shared the cost of the ships and you paint them. Damn knees buckled in 30 seconds !

We are doing the whole battle at the Royal Armouries Leeds in November as a display still need to work out the logistics of tables etc. 28 Battleships on 12 cm long bases plus say 5cm between ships and 5 cm extra between squadrons alone is over 15 ft.

Lord help me.
Regards Ken
yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

LOL! Good luck, Ken. :-)

- Ix

In a few weeks I'm going to run a test game of the Jutland BC action at a local club meeting to try out an idea: I want to give each player at least one BC and a whole squadron of lighter ships.

In my experience, capital ship shooting takes the longest time to resolve. When one player has all the capital ships on his side, everybody else ends up waiting around for him to finish shooting his prodigious complement of guns every turn. I'm hoping that splitting up the BCs will speed up the shooting, but even if it doesn't, at least everybody will be involved while the shooting phases drag out.

I'm also hoping that this will encourage light forces to be used more historically. Typically, a player who has a command of only DDs and/or CLs will charge straight in for a torpedo run with zero regard for orders or sound tactics, because gamers (esp. convention gamers) feel that maneuvering without shooting is "not doing anything", even when it's winning the battle. My optimistic theory is that a gamer with one or more BCs and a whole squadron of light ships will feel busy enough "doing something" with the BC(s) to feel better about "only" maneuvering the light squadron until a good opportunity arises (or direct orders are given). And, just maybe, with this arrangement light forces will also less frequently maneuver into a position that interferes with capital ship gunnery, another recurring irritation in convention games. We'll see.

- Ix

Nice idea, lx. Hope to see you try that out at Enfilade.