"What makes a "satisfying" naval wargame scenario ?????" Topic

Deliberate provocation here …..

Let's say that you participated in a nicely presented naval wargame and found after several hours of play that the net end result was -

> one enemy battlecruiser damaged.
> one enemy armored cruiser sunk.
> your flagship disabled.

Would you consider that an enjoyable experience?

B

No – the most enjoyable naval wargames I've played have always been part of a campaign game.

Ships go boom

Yes – too many games end in annihilation of one side which is unrealistic so having something a.little inconclusive feels right and gives you something to argue over in the pub over a pint of decent ale!

Let's say that you participated in a nicely presented naval wargame and found after several hours of play that the net end result was -

> one enemy battlecruiser damaged.
> one enemy armored cruiser sunk.
> your flagship disabled.

Would depend on how many ships were involved in the action.

Touche' MajorB. You make an excellent point. I was taking Dogger Bank as the case study, so 4-5 heavy ships per side plus lots of CLs and DDs.

What say you on that basis?

B

Timmo – Fair comment, and one which I share.

I'm assuming that a one-off scenario with the result described would be unsatisfactory. But let's say the scenario WAS part of a campaign. What do you think your reaction would be then?

B

I personally would find it satisfactory, but I don't believe many others would. Gamers, with no tomorrow to worry about (reference Timmo UK remark) they just say, "let's see what happens" and somebody gets wiped out. That bugs the hell out of me, not inconclusive results.

A game where both sides have a reasonable chance of victory. Actually, I prefer to be on the underdog side to be honest.

There are lots of historic engagements, particularly in Pacific WWII that resulted in utter destruction for the losers.

I was taking Dogger Bank as the case study, so 4-5 heavy ships per side plus lots of CLs and DDs.

The casualties (in terms of ships) at Dogger Bank in 1915 were:
British:
1 battlecruiser out of action
1 destroyer out of action

German:
1 armoured cruiser sunk
1 battlecruiser heavily damaged

So in your game, damage was a bit on the light side but not outrageously so.

A game where both sides have a reasonable chance of victory.

And that of course would depend on how you define "victory" and how you calculate a "reasonable chance".

Yea for Dogger Bank that sounds entirely reasonable.

-Will

I feel a thesis coming on: Semantics in Naval Wargaming

Ships go boom

+1

For myself I've played many different Naval Battles some part of Campaigns and then stand alone ones.

And some of our results were as described above from a few ships sunk per side to where one Fleet is more or less wiped out.

I give 3 examples of Historical Naval Battles we did the first one was The Battle of the Yellow Sea in the Russo-Japanese War.

So in this game which we were playing with the Fire When Ready rules the Russian's more or less wiped out the Japanese we even had the Russian Flagship rammed and cut in two the Japanese Battleship Fuji.

Now in this game(which I was on the Russian side)we have some very good die rolling for the Russian's while the Japanese had some bad die rolling.

The second example is The Battle of the Nile but in this battle we did a twist instead of the French Fleet sitting at anchor in Aboukir Bay we had the French Fleet sail and meet the British Fleet at sea.

The rules we were using were called 74 and were done by a friend of mine.

In this Battle the British Fleet lost at least two thirds of it's Fleet sunk or captured while the French Fleet didn't lose a ship.

This battle was won with good die rolling and good tactics on the part of the French.

Now the third and final example was a small fight between 2 Capital ships per side.

On one side you had an Iowa class Battleship and a North Carolina class Battleship.

On the other side there was a Yamato class Battleship(Yamato herself)and the Nagato Battleship.

The rules we were using were Seekrieg 5.

Both sides were trading shots and early on the Nagato had a hit which caused a fire and regretfully couldn't put it out so it blew up after a few turns so this left the Yamato all by herself against the 2 US Battleships.

Yamato(commanded by me)was trading shots with the Iowa and then I decided to switch targets to the North Carolina where I was able to hit her with one 18.1 inch shell and when our friend who was the GM pulled a card and he said I've never seen this card before and it read Magazine Explosion.

So now it was one on one with the Yamato and Iowa.

The game went on for a few more turns with the Yamato losing here rear 18inch turret while the Iowa lost all of her 16inch guns due to flooding and electrical problems so the Iowa only had her 5inch guns while I still had my 2 forward 18inch turrets.

The final result was the Iowa slowing sinking and then blowing up so for me it was very well fought battle.

I think you can say almost anything can happen in a Naval game and I've seen some crazy things over the years I even saw a Destroyer fire torpedos outrun them and then get hit by it's own torpedos.

Whatever the result(more or less)everyone has a good time be they the winners or the losers.

A satisfying scenario – hmm, depends on the situation. Like others have mentioned above I also prefer naval games as part of a campaign, or at least a single game in a campaign context. Something involving objectives other than just "sink the enemy's ships", perhaps escorting a convoy, protecting a beachhead against a raid, extricating a crippled ship to safety, or escaping from an superior force. A full campaign setting with multiple actions is of course much more fun (our NWS Falklands 1982, Midway, Malaya 1941 and Coral Sea campaigns are still talked about 20 years on).

That said a straightforward BB vs BB sugfest or a simple clash of MTBs and S Boats can be a lot of fun too and quite satisfying for a short evening's play in its own right.

I suppose the ultimate measure of effectiveness is whether the players flt that'd had an enjoyable gaming experience at the end of the day

So, to answer the original question – yes, that would be fine as long as the rules were enjoyable to play and the game was fought in good humour. If the result had come as a result of applyng mind-numbingly complex rules that game one a migraine, or it had been fought against opponents who were unpleasant or argued every point then not so much :)

One where I win!

"Timmo – Fair comment, and one which I share.

I'm assuming that a one-off scenario with the result described would be unsatisfactory. But let's say the scenario WAS part of a campaign. What do you think your reaction would be then?"

I'd say it's impossible to say one way or another. It may well be that the result is entirely historically plausible and has interesting implications for the campaign. Were that the case then I'd say 'yes, that was an enjoyable scenario.' I was always impressed by the realistic outcome the rules we used gave, they only seemed a let down when less experienced players didn't really know the best way to handle the campaign forces at their disposal. This could result in very one sided scenarios, especially if they chose or were forced to fight it out rather than slipping away.

What I liked about the campaign setting was that a good result might be damaging an enemy ship enough to enable you to disengage and slip away. In short the campaign setting made all the scenario quite loaded in a positive sense.

<snark>

Any scenario where I spend a few hours looking at charts and moving my ship 1/8" at a time, only to be blown away at the first volley. That's why I play Harpoon!

</snark>

Really, I'm not too picky as long as the game moves along quickly and everyone is engaged.

One of the scenarios I have been playing with is to do a Hypothetical Coral Sea where the Carrier Groups came into sight of each other as dawn broke instead of just coming very close and turning away. I am planning on using VaS with the Manley Mods for ease of play on a 4'x8' table.

[1] Booty, ideally in the form of Doubloons and winsome wenches.
[2] The Battle of the River Plate.
[3] Incoming missiles o shit o shit o shit.

Don't get me wrong… I love naval gaming… I live for naval gaming…. But when I play:

Armada – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

Anglo-Dutch – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

SYW – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

Napoleonic – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

Civil War – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

Anglo/French or Lissa Ironclads – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

Predreads – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

WWII/Jutland – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

WWII – Both sides run at it headlong with no maneuver and no regard for tactical advantage, a big Trafalgar style melee with no regard to signalling or formation ensues, lots and lots of ships blow up and we run out of time.

I'd like to see something different.

I'd like to see something different.

Well, you need to design more interesting scenarios as others have suggested above.

In any kind of game, I'd rather lose a close game than win a landslide. As has been noted – many battles in real life were landslides, and many appeared to be inconclusive until later when the aftermath determined future actions.

If the result had come as a result of applying mind-numbingly complex rules that gave one a migraine…

Double plus good response, David Manley. I fully concur with this. I recall a WWII naval game in the late 1970s where we decided to fight a small fleet action using a new set of rules someone had purchased. Both sides moved into range, the lead ships open fire, and we then spent 30 minutes figuring out the fire combat system. One side missed and the other side scored a hit. This seemed exciting until 3 charts and several die rolls later, we determined the hit took out a searchlight. We then looked at the number of ships we had deployed and thought about how long shooting out that searchlight had taken. Both sides decided to pack them up and try another rules system another day. I simply cannot remember the rules name.

That was a true wasted naval game!

Played in a game of Seakrieg 5 and even with a computer was extremely disappointed in the rules (hit enemy ship and started a fire in the galley after many dice rolls and table lookup). Have tried General Quarters 3 and have now purchased the rules and will be testing them. Was a big fan of seapower II but it seems to have fallen out of favor and can not see where it is being sold.

The game must keep everyone busy. There is nothing more boring then to have to sit around for 30 minutes while waiting for the judge to resolve part of the action Also, once taught the players should be able to do all of the moving and shooting and judge should only be there for the unusual situations (you REALLY wanted to ram the cruiser with your destroyer).

I do think there is validity in the view that a wargame rules spectrum/scale exists, ranging from "game" (an unrealistic, idiotically simple rule set intended for play by drunk people that pays little or no attention to historicity) to "simulation" (an analytical study masquerading as a wargame, where playability is sacrificed upon the altar of complicated minutiae. Neither extremity is a good place for a rule set to be (IMO).

That having been said. My question really is this. What about a playable, historically reasonable rule set that produces approximately historical results – i.e., perhaps you play three or four hours and no ships are sunk, a few ships are damaged and everyone ultimately heads for home (say, for example, Heligoland 1917)??? I am interested to get a feel for what the hot buttons are among the generality of naval gamers: the ability to exercise realistic tactics? the ability to incorporate historical light forces on the table? the desire to see lots of ships blowing up?

And, in closing, I do fully agree that the BEST scenarios without question stem from well run campaigns!

B

Personally I don't agree with the "simple = game, complex = simulation" concept. I have played many commercial wargames that are hellishly complex and severely unrealistic in their results. I have taken part in a number of recreational and professional wargames that have used very simple rules but which have been extremely realistic in the results that they have delivered.

Now in this game(which I was on the Russian side)we have some very good die rolling for the Russian's while the Japanese had some bad die rolling.

This battle was won with good die rolling and good tactics on the part of the French.

Yamato(commanded by me)was trading shots with the Iowa and then I decided to switch targets to the North Carolina where I was able to hit her with one 18.1 inch shell and when our friend who was the GM pulled a card and he said I've never seen this card before and it read Magazine Explosion.

A game where tactics and thought have been the major factors and the dice have had a minor part.

I love a bit of Naval action myself, a good fun game played in the right spirit with friends would be the number one priority for me.

I'm play testing some WW1 rules at the moment so there is a bit of line em up and knock em down with that but generally I play scenario based games.

My prefered games are linked scenarios building a campaign around that rather than the dull as dish water traditional campaign when you loose the will to live plotting search patterns. Over the last couple of years I have run such games around Easter time, we did a 1941 Far East Brits vs Japs game based on the one on the Naval Wargames Society site. This year it was a 1941 Med Campaign this year and I am planning one for next year based around the Russian Baltic Fleet. Full lists and rules on't blog if you fancy it.

So I would enjoy the initial game in a campaign setting having a laugh along the way with me mates.

Regards, Ken
yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

DM wrote – "Personally I don't agree with the "simple = game, complex = simulation" concept. I have played many commercial wargames that are hellishly complex and severely unrealistic in their results. I have taken part in a number of recreational and professional wargames that have used very simple rules but which have been extremely realistic in the results that they have delivered."

….. A set of rules that accurately reflects historical principles by means of simple game mechanics is a thing of ethereal beauty, but such rules are rare indeed.

My experience (perhaps uniquely unfortunate) has been that the really "simple" rule sets are almost invariably of the non-historical "beer and chips" sort, while the unplayable, eye-bleedingly complicated rule sets reside at the other extreme of the spectrum.

B

Seems fine to me, in answer to the original question, though perhaps some would expect a bit more damage to occur.

I guess it boils down to the forces you are using, the scenario, and the rules.

Some, like the old GQ1 and GQ2 rules abstract out all the minor, trivial stuff, like misses and minor damage, and get straight to the meat of the matter, only factoring in important damage and critical hits.

Ideally, you'd want to have players with some historical background in naval combat and tactics, and/or to have the rules/GM(s) control their actions a bit.

I find that lower down on the "food chain", so to speak, smaller scenarios with some of the littler vessels tend to permit more vessels to be sunk, and/or damaged, proportionally, so you might consider using them for your games, in your definition of fun is "more vessels sunk".

I fail to see how the amount of damage suffered during a game has anything at all to do with how satisfying the game was. I'm interested in naval tactics, strategy and technology, not sadism.

I find any game satisfying if it engaged me as a player in a lot of decisions, and I'm frustrated by games that remove me from the game activities. I tend to find naval games most satisfying when there is a strategic context (e.g. clear victory conditions, a campaign, etc.), one or more challenging tactical puzzles to work out, a lot of maneuvering, and at least a few tense moments along the way. I am nearly always dissatisfied with naval games where two assortments of ships sail straight into a melee and blast away until one side has lost so many ships that it gives up.

- Ix

I'd like to see something different.

Well, you need to design more interesting scenarios as others have suggested above.

I'm not convinced that a good scenario is enough. The attitudes of the gamers involved have a lot to do with it. I've had plenty of frustrating incidents as a GM trying to create maneuver contests with scenario conditions, campaigns, victory point regimes, etc. but it's often impossible to overcome the tendency of players to ignore the overall fleet goals, pay zero attention to the tactical advantages of each ship design, get way too close, and fight to the last ship afloat.

- Ix

I'm not convinced that a good scenario is enough. The attitudes of the gamers involved have a lot to do with it. I've had plenty of frustrating incidents as a GM trying to create maneuver contests with scenario conditions, campaigns, victory point regimes, etc. but it's often impossible to overcome the tendency of players to ignore the overall fleet goals, pay zero attention to the tactical advantages of each ship design, get way too close, and fight to the last ship afloat.

Thank you.

I like the gunnery part of naval games and ones where there is a variety of maneuver and fleets ducking in and out of poor weather/fog.

We've been using a gunnery / hit system that uses an off board plotting table with 1:1200 scale model ships. We use clear transparencies that represent salvo grid with each round in the salvo marked with a dry erase pen spread out along the salvo grid.

The model of the ship is placed on the plotting board angled like it is on the playing surface. There is one die roll that determines where the middle of the salvo lands over or under the target location and one for lateral dispersion. The clear transparency of the salvo with rounds plotted on it is placed on the plotting board and any hits determined.

We've pre-computed the angle of descent for guns in 1000 yard increments so we can determine which rounds hit the ship or land in the danger space and which ones are near misses without any additional die rolls.

Players make the same decisions as gunnery officers. The nationality gun and fire control system determine how compact salvos can be at different ranges and players can decide to fire an open salvo that has a better chance to straddle but get less actual hits or a tighter salvo that can generate more hits but a lesser chance of a salvo.

We can actually recreate the cat and mouse game of chasing salvos as after each salvo the firing player makes a range change for the next salvo and the defending player can make a course change but may penalize his firing solution. We can play by estimating the range on the floor or have a table for different type range finders. Seeing the results of each round in a salvo with one die roll is more fun and less work.

It gives a much better feel than rolling for number of hits and hit locations. When a players ship gets straddled you'll see him start maneuvering and maybe head for a fog bank.

Wolfhag

I strongly agree with DM. You can have simple games that are historically accurate. Unfortunately, my experience is that there are far less naval games hitting this mark compared to land based games that do this successfully.

My pet peeve is that naval gamers obsess over gunnery, damage, and technology. Command and control the is rarely if ever modeled well. Especially in WW1. The combination of rigid doctrine and rudimentary communication technology made dreadnought fleets into blindfolded heavy weight fighters.

To answer the original question, the game above seemed to give a historical feel. However, 5 hours to a result seems long to me. Most of my friends won't play naval for that reason.

Unfortunately, based on comments above I feel I am in the minority here.

Command and control the is rarely if ever modeled well.

Or at all.

I pretty much agree, with the caveat that naval games that don't model enough of the gritty details don't feel "naval". Naval miniatures gamers will argue to the last shell about how much detail is "enough", but there does seem to be wide consensus that naval games need to be more process-oriented than results-oriented. That makes it very difficult to model C3 correctly.

In practice, I find that human players introduce plenty of chaos. Multiplayer games seem like the easiest way to keep fleets ill-coordinated. :-)

- Ix

This thread has taken an interesting direction and I largely agree with the commentary. I consider myself a student of naval history first and a naval wargamer second. From that viewpoint, it appears to me that most naval wargame rules focus intensely (and excessively) upon guns, armor and damage effects at the expense of tactics and tactical doctrine. The majority of rule sets ignore or neuter environmental factors (light, wind, sea state) that in the real world would have a material, sometimes decisive effect upon gunnery. Beyond that, such rules also ignore the effects of maneuver upon gunnery efficiency – 60deg turn effected by your WW1 dreadnought? No problem – just fire away per normal.

Another issue – Light cruisers, destroyers and such are most notable by their absence from the majority of the fleet and squadron games I have seen (YMMV); no one wants to bother with them. To me, it's like playing chess without the knights and pawns.

With all these components subtracted from the equation, 90 percent of the motivation/need to maneuver is lost and you are left with a sterile gladiatorial dice-rolling contest to see who gets the first magazine hit. B O R I N G.

B

Most main guns on battleships could rotate at 3-5 degrees per second so a turn rate of 2-3 degrees per second should be able to keep the guns on target and not be extreme enough to throw off your firing solution. However, a violent/emergency turn at 10 degrees per second is going to mess up everything. When playing games with turns being one minute or longer you can justify a ship making a 180 degree turn and still being able to fire within limits of the turret and director control tracking the target. That's how I see it.

There is a large percentage of players that fall into the category of "roll the dice and blow things up" desiring immediate gratification. Anything that limits that is frowned upon. I've been a GM with games where we used realistic command and control that can limit your ability to engage the enemy. Many times the results is "Whaaat! Whaddya mean I can't shoot this turn!! This game sucks." They are always looking for a hole in the rules to justify an advantage but hate it when the tables are turned.

Realism is not always fun. At conventions the WWI and WWII naval war games I watched seemed to be mind numbing exercises of die rolling by players that seemed almost catatonic. If you go to Pacificon or Kublacon I may be talking about you. However, your models are exquisite, much better than my two tone 1:6000 scale fleet. OK, I admit I have never played it so I could be missing out on something.

Again at most games I've observed the ship models are too big for the table and do not allow for any realistic maneuvering. Most miniature games have the same problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too much gunnery" as I see naval warfare as mainly a gunnery duel with environmental and command and control factors impacting it. Players want to see how different ships will perform offensively or defensively. I play mostly WWI naval and like the differences between the British and German ranging and gunnery techniques. The game system that I think has the best balance and accuracy is "Seas of War".

Regarding the cruisers and DD's not playing a part. At most of the conventions I've attended the naval games had ship models that were way too large for the playing surface. Adding a couple of dozen more cruisers and destroyers would have destroyed the game. I play 1:6000 scale on a floor which is a little bit of a pain but we can recreate realistic scenarios, fog banks and rain squaws, flanking maneuvers. I use a 3x5 inch index card to represent squadrons of DD's and smaller ships. We use a scale of 1" = 100 yards. I've borrowed C&C rules from other games like Cordite & Steel.

Wolfhag

"Most main guns on battleships could rotate at 3-5 degrees per second so a turn rate of 2-3 degrees per second should be able to keep the guns on target and not be extreme enough to throw off your firing solution."
….. While it is true that WARSPITE did fire her main battery at Jutland while circling under a jammed helm, she did so under local control. WW1 era capital ships fitted with FC tables and director control did not fire while the ship was actually in the process of turning; while the training rate of main battery turrets could typically keep up with the standard rate of turn, the FC control systems of the era were only capable of computing gunnery solutions when the firing ship was on a steady course. This has been further corroborated by cross-comparison of surviving BCF Jutland gunnery logs with their maneuver charts. Only ships whose batteries were fitted with RPC (remote power control) could perform in the manner described and RPC only appeared late in WW2; even then they did not do so with equivalent efficiency.
– - -
"There is a large percentage of players that fall into the category of "roll the dice and blow things up" desiring immediate gratification. Anything that limits that is frowned upon."
….. Undeniably true.
- – -
"Realism is not always fun. At conventions the WWI and WWII naval war games I watched seemed to be mind numbing exercises of die rolling by players that seemed almost catatonic. If you go to Pacificon or Kublacon I may be talking about you. However, your models are exquisite, much better than my two tone 1:6000 scale fleet. OK, I admit I have never played it so I could be missing out on something."
….. Also true IMO, and a wise caution about the need to carefully craft scenarios (of any genre actually) for convention play.
- – -
"Again at most games I've observed the ship models are too big for the table and do not allow for any realistic maneuvering."
….. Once again, agree. 1:1200 scale models have no business on a tabletop. IMO, even tabletop scenarios featuring 1:2400 scale models must be treated with care: pre-dreadnought and WW2 night battles are usually fine, but, in my experience, WW1 or later daylight actions are very difficult to fit onto a typical tabletop without unpleasant aesthetic consequences.
- – -
"I'm not sure what you mean by "too much gunnery" as I see naval warfare as mainly a gunnery duel with environmental and command and control factors impacting it. Players want to see how different ships will perform offensively or defensively. I play mostly WWI naval and like the differences between the British and German ranging and gunnery techniques. The game system that I think has the best balance and accuracy is "Seas of War"."
….. Fair question. I have played what I perceive to have been the popular naval rules over the years. Most of these IMO overly fixate upon how far the guns shoot and how much armor they penetrate; gunnery accuracy and armor penetration capabilities versus range are typically greatly optimistic.
I have not played "Seas of War", but the other rules I have played present a generic one-size-fits-all gunnery system for all nationalities. And, of those, few effectively incorporate environmental effects (light, wind and sea state) upon gunnery.
While all that technical gunnery stuff (much of it wrong IMO) is presented in luxuriant detail, when was the last time a set of naval rules gave a cogent discussion about the real world aspects of maneuvering a DD flotilla or delivering a torpedo attack (don't get me started on the horrors of most torpedo rules)?
- – -
"Regarding the cruisers and DD's not playing a part. At most of the conventions I've attended the naval games had ship models that were way too large for the playing surface. Adding a couple of dozen more cruisers and destroyers would have destroyed the game. I play 1:6000 scale on a floor which is a little bit of a pain but we can recreate realistic scenarios, fog banks and rain squalls, flanking maneuvers. I use a 3x5 inch index card to represent squadrons of DD's and smaller ships. We use a scale of 1" = 100 yards. I've borrowed C&C rules from other games like Cordite & Steel."
….. I used to play 1:2400 scale @ 10in = 1000yds on the floor in the days when my friends were willing to do so, but my crowd is too old and creaky in the joints now. I have mothballed my 1:2400 scale ships and gone to 1:6000 scale @ 3in = 1000yds on the tabletop; I have found it suitable for most WW1 scenarios, which is my preferred period.

B

A satisfying naval wargame scenario? Now if I could design one of those every time I'd be very happy.

The problem is different players want different things: realism, lots of damage and sinkings, tactics, command and control, uncertainty.

I mainly play solo these days, due to lack of local players not because no-one will play me, and I can tailor the scenario to my own tastes. I also throw in the occasional random event: a periscope sighting could be an error by a lookout or an actual submarine. Do you turn away or not, send a destroyer after it?

Much like Blutarski, I am an amateur student of (British) naval history, but have also been a navigator and officer of the watch. Even with modern comms it takes time to manoeuvre a force of ships. Controlling a number of dispersed squadrons by comparatively primitive techniques required skill and a degree of good fortune. Jellicoe's deployment at Jutland was masterly based on the sparse information he was receiving. And look at the almost random arrival of the Rodney before the final action against the Bismarck.

So to answer the original question – I want a game where the battle has a reason and the outcome would matter in the "real world", ships are handled as in reality, and I have to make decisions a real commander would have to make.

When I set up a scenario I like to have environmental conditions that can change like the WWI battles in the North Sea. Wind strength and direction will dictate the direction of stack smoke blowing that will interfere with ranging and spotting. Now maneuvering comes into play throughout the battle and must be considered in any maneuver order. The best maneuver may bring the stack smoke between you and the enemy so you need to make a compromise.

After the ranging shots ships start firing salvos. The main factor in accuracy is spotting the salvo results. Again visibility, changing environmental conditions, stack smoke all come into play. Better spotting means better accuracy (how far the middle of a salvo lands from the target). If a salvo cannot be spotted it's harder to make adjustments. Near misses can also influence with spotting and can keep turrets with local control from tracking and firing at a target.

As far as outcomes there are no real expectations from either side as there are so many variables. So far we've modeled pretty historically the differences in damage and explosions between WWI German and British ships. The group I play with likes the detailed gunnery and hit location stuff as do I. We all like when the tables can be turned by variables of wind, environmental and smoke.

Players must take into account maneuvering that puts stack smoke of the enemy to interfere with their spotting.

When a ship is straddled it can normally expect the enemy to start rapid fire (if they are capable). Rapid fire is firing at max ROF without waiting for results of spotting the salvo results and making adjustments. In this case the target will normally make an evasive maneuver that will result in them losing all firing solutions and effectively be out of the battle for a number of turns. They may have to drop out of the battle line too. Sometimes ships that are straddling each other will attempt to slug it out with each other staying on course and firing.

Also once a salvo is spotted as straddling the firing ship may be able to shorten the salvo length that can result in multiple hits. Longer salvo lengths increase chance of straddle but if too large at longer ranges it may not result in a hit. We take into account danger space and have angle of descent figured for guns in 1000 yard increments to determine hits. We've only done smaller sized scenarios.

What I like is a game system that allows player gunnery and maneuver decisions that can make a huge difference in the results. This means it is less of a die rolling exercise. Of course that level of detail would not work with large fleet actions. A large fleet action where the player is the commander would most likely result in a dice fest and the player not having much influence on ship gunnery or small course changes. Nothing wrong with that if you want that type of game or scenario playing as a fleet commander.

Regarding torpedo rules. I've seen extensive discussions but no agreement on how to do it or balance between realism and playability.

Wolfhag

….. I used to play 1:2400 scale @ 10in = 1000yds on the floor in the days when my friends were willing to do so, but my crowd is too old and creaky in the joints now. I have mothballed my 1:2400 scale ships and gone to 1:6000 scale @ 3in = 1000yds on the tabletop; I have found it suitable for most WW1 scenarios, which is my preferred period.

Using which rules?

Blutarski said:

(don't get me started on the horrors of most torpedo rules)

I'm getting you started. :-) What do you want from torpedo rules?

I've played various rules, but when I choose to run a game it's nearly always been GQ (mostly GQ2 and FAI), so that's the only set of rules I've modified. My approach has been to toss out most of the torpedo mechanisms and replace them with a simple die roll. This seems to make the most sense if one is playing a game from the perspective of a squadron or fleet commander. The C-in-C isn't calculating the torpedo shots any more than he's laying the guns, he's just maneuvering his ships to get within an ideal attack range and position and then relying on his crews to follow their training. For GQ2, this worked out pretty well.

For FAI, I'm still working on it. The FAI rules includes "Alternate Fleet Action Torpedo Attacks" (section 7.4.9) which are much closer to what I'm looking for, but since I also reduced the ground scale to fit the game on a table, it is nearly impossible to hit using the 20° gyro angles on the indicator (the ranges are too short and the targets frequently zoom right out of the danger zone in the next move). My next attempted solution will be make my own markers with only one gyro angle, and:

• write down target, number of torpedoes and depth on the indicator;
  
• mark the launch point by placing the indicator upside down;
  
• in the torpedo resolution phase, if the target is still in the arc, roll the dice.

Hopefully that will produce the right number of torpedo hits (very few, but a few). If it doesn't, I'll adjust the gyro angle (60° or 90° or 120°). If that doesn't help, I'll try adding or removing modifiers, but I'd like to avoid messing with the published game charts.

- Ix

Hagen wrote -

….. I used to play 1:2400 scale @ 10in = 1000yds on the floor in the days when my friends were willing to do so, but my crowd is too old and creaky in the joints now. I have mothballed my 1:2400 scale ships and gone to 1:6000 scale @ 3in = 1000yds on the tabletop; I have found it suitable for most WW1 scenarios, which is my preferred period.

Using which rules?

- – -

Blutarski reply -

….. Own unpublished rule set which I have been working on for quite a while, mostly as a result of (a) the need to do proper research and (b) develop a unified damage effect mechanics suitable to cover the full range of vessel types and sizes. Aimed at being a "low stress" streamlined simulation playable from turn to turn with the ship chart alone. Gunnery and damage effects are basically chart-free (i.e., you can do it in your head with a few brief details from your ship chart). Variable hit locations and damage severity for any given shell hit.

If you have ever played my "Steer to Glory" AoS rules at a convention, the mechanical "Feel" is similar.

B

I made up my own rules too, and torpedo attacks are simple die rolls, but made after gun hits take effect so the enemy has a chance to prevent the attack.

YA wrote – "I'm getting you started. :-) What do you want from torpedo rules?"

- – -

Introductory caveat No. 1 – I have played a lot of naval wargame rule sets, but I have NOT by any means played all of them. There may be some great rule sets out with of which I remain unaware.

Introductory caveat No. 2 – Approximating the historical realities is more important to me than creating the simplest possible rules.

For the sake of simplicity, I will confine my comments to the state of the torpedo-man's art circa WW1 – my favorite period.

[1] Torpedoes were powerful anti-ship weapons, but were very expensive to produce and available in limited numbers. They were therefore husbanded for favorable or important tactical moments and were not indiscriminately fired off.

[2] Torpedo armaments of surface ships had two tactical functions: (a) "precision" attacks against individual target ships at short ranges usually not exceeding 5,000 yds or the range limit of the high-speed setting; (b) area or "browning " attacks against enemy formations at longer ranges.

[3] The setting or changing of torpedo speed/range or running depth could not be done on the fly as a matter of simple electrical button-pressing. The torpedo had to be physically accessed and the settings manually made. If the launch tube had an service access hatch, this could be done at sea; if not, the torpedo had to be drawn from the tube or the settings had to be done in port.

[4] WW1 torpedoes possessed gyros which theoretically made it possible to offset their direction of travel from the heading of the launching device by certain pre-set angular increments, but this feature was imprecise and unreliable and of limited utility; most launches from surface ships with deck mounted tubes were made with no angle-off. Spreads (in the sense of the "fan spreads" with 1-3 degree intervals between individual torpedo tracks as were used in WW2) were not employed; a short delay between the successive individual launches and the innate mechanical deviations of the torpedoes as they traveled through the water were deemed sufficient to produce an acceptable pattern of dispersion. According to British experiments, the growth of the width of dispersion appears to have been a function of time rather than running distance; about half the torpedoes launched could be relied upon to reach the target within the effective dispersion zone, the remainder having succumbed to cold launches, excessive course deviation, deep-running, etc.

[5] There was really no such thing as "eye-shooting" a torpedo beyond perhaps 2,000 yards (assuming you a more or less broadside target). Beyond that distance, aiming a torpedo launch was effectively a matter of solving a trigonometry problem. Even if the target was an enemy formation, there was an optimal point alongthe length of the formation that would statistically promise best overall hitting percentage. The following basic information was required to solve this trig problem: target speed, target inclination relative to the line of sight from the firing ship; torpedo speed. The distance to target was not technically essential to a solution of the problem except to confirm that that torpedo/target intercept point was within the running distance of the torpedo. Torpedo armed ships were fitted with torpedo directors to do the necessary trigonometric computations.

[5] For all their deadly power, torpedoes were INFINITELY SLOW compared to gun projectiles. A torpedo at medium range setting (say 10,000 yds @ 30-35 kts) would have a running time of ~ 10 minutes; a post-Jutland British extended range ("ER") torpedo (say 15,000 yds @ 20 kts) might have a running time of 20 minutes or more. On the other hand, depending upon sea state, a running torpedo would typically not be visible to a ship until it was quite close (a couple of thousand yards?).

[6] Assuming that a target ship is found within the effective zone of dispersion at any moment, the likelihood of a hit must reflect: (a) the number/density of torpedoes per unit of dispersion frontage; (b) the draft of the target ship; (c) the inclination of the target ship relative to torpedo direction of travel; (d) the length of the target ship.

That's what I believe should be represented within a proper set of torpedo rules. If there is any interest in how I myself have tackled the problem from a game mechanics perspective, let me know. I'm happy to share.

Must sign off at this point. Time to pick up my lovely wife.

B

Blutarski,
For me you are on the right track. I prefer some type of weapon modeling over die rolls and modifiers.

If I recall Alnavco Sea Power used a system that if a torpedo came within a certain distance (1000 yds?) There was a chance of it hitting the ship. They used a formula with the length of the ship and the area it covers.

Good discussion. Maybe we should start a new one?

Wolfhag