"The perfect WWII naval rules?" Topic

This should prompt plenty of discussion and debate…

What do peopke look for when choosing a set of ww2 naval rules?

Also are there any aspects of naval warfare in this period that people feel that isn't covered or simulated well by any existing rule sets?

Look forward to hearing your views.

Rory
rorycrabb.wordpress.com

A simple set of rules that do not get too stuck in details. Am now looking at General Quarters 3 which has replaced Seapower III as rules of choice. I looked at Seakrieg 5 but when I played them at a convention they were so complex they caused strange results and took too long. Seapower III were good rules but started to show their age.

There are problems when mixing modes. Air rules set into naval rules usually can cause problems. Submarines have a problem when used in a game of surface combat.

Anything that attempts to resolve shell by shell is out, doubly so if things get significantly micro on damage resolution (I do not care if the Captains Day Room is hit). Anything where one players cannot comfortably handle at least 8+ ships is out.

I prefer General Quarters 3(or 1/2) or Battle Stations, Battle Stations. Resolution of fire over time and ideally never torpedo plotting (a minions task, not an Admiral). It is also a minor quibble but never carriers on the board except as targets desperately fleeing.

That said, there is a large faction of naval gamers that really prefer 'rivet counting' and that is an equally valid approach however attempting to combine simplicity with shell by shell detailed damage resolution is likely to satisfy neither simplicity seeking large battle gamers and detail seeking rivet counters.

I've played every extreme from a virtual rock-paper-scissors approach to Seekrieg V. WWI combat where guns and torps are mostly equal is easy. Add in Long Lances, aircraft and radar directed fire (which only a few have) and it gets real complicated. It is usually with torps, night combat and electronics that it breaks down.

So it has to incorporate those elements in a playable manner. I want to run a squadron or two and play it out in no more than three hours assuming it isn't a "special" game. For me, Naval Thunder fits the bill.

I prefer General Quarters 3, but generally use 1 and 2 because the other guys in my group have them, but I'm the only one with 3.

No such thing as "perfect", but I stopped looking after I played GQ3.

Having said that, I really like the basic outline of the fleet morale system in "Battle Stations! Battle Stations!". I will probably graft that onto GQ3 (and FAI) at some point.

I also have no interest in GQ3 for carrier ops. BSBS might work better for that, GQ1 might work okay with flight-groups of planes abstracted in somehow, but so far I'm really only happy with board games for fighting carrier battles. The numbers of ships, planes, and interactions between the two will stretch any system.

- Ix

Options for solo gameplay.

I think Battlewagon by Task Force games hit the sweet spot for me (old boardgame). Came out 30+ years ago and still my favorite.

Which ruleset does torpedoes best?

I played GQ3 a few months ago for the first time and even though my torp hit dead on, it didn't. Perplexing.

"….are there any aspects of naval warfare in this period that people feel that isn't covered or simulated well by any existing rule sets"?

Suicide attacks by the worlds forces, e.g. British, Italians, and Japanese manned torpedoes seems to be largely overlooked. I recall seeing some nice pics of convention games a few years, or more back, but I think they used home-brew rules.

Probably best played as solo, or one-sided affairs, with the defenders manned by the GM, since they're usually oblivious to the attacks until something blows up, or the chaps surrender themselves, after the charges have been put into place on the vessels.

I still like GQ1 and 2.

Have GQ3, but have never played them. Need to change that one day.

I like rules that decide what level of command the players are fulfilling and then pitches itself at that level. For example, ships COs had gunnery and torpedo officers who looked after all the complex messy stuff there so overly complex resolution systems aren't appropriate. Range estimation is right out. Same goes for damage resolution in games where the players are taking the role of commodores and admirals. They don't need to know the minute details of the damage taken by HMS XXX (if they want to know they are losing the plot), instead they need to know "is she still combat effective, is she still mobile?" and not that much more.

So, what I'd look for in a set of rules would vary depending on what type of game and at what level I was playing, how much time do I have – is it an all day or an all weekend campaign game? An afternoon to play out an encounter between a small number of ships, a two to three hour game on club night. aircraft carriers, battleships or MTBs?

After having used Battlestations Battlestations for multiple large battles it is now my go to set. Only for WW2 and people who love to lob every single shell need look elsewhere. My previous go to set was General Quarters. If you want a large naval battle that can be played out in a couple of hours with believable results this is the set. Still available from Decision Games.

Given the niche that Naval Wargaming still occupies in the general scheme of things, I'd define the 'best' ruleset is a ruleset that manages to bring it out of obscurity…

Ofcourse this does not say anything about the quality, historicity or playability of the set :D

Our group has tried a lot of Naval rules over the years and the one I remember is Clear for Action.

It was a decent set of Naval rules and it was a range estimation game it wasn't too bad so does anyone else here ever heard of Clear for Action?

Any rules that does not use range estimation is closer to the perfect than not.

I like rules that decide what level of command the players are fulfilling and then pitches itself at that level.

So you play Action Stations with one boat per player? :-) (I'm not knocking Action Stations – I like that game!)

As a general rule I agree with that statement, but in practice I agree with most naval gamers that some amount of extra process-oriented, descriptive "fluff" is desirable. I'm not really a rivet-counter, but GQ3 gives every hit the descriptive quality and slight variation of effect that most rules reserve for "critical hits" in about the neatest and most streamlined way I've seen yet. Ships are large systems of smaller systems, and damage to the same location on two ships of the same class can often have slightly different results, and I get that from GQ3. I admit I would like it more streamlined, but no rules are perfect, and if I want to play with more than a half-dozen-ish ships per player, I just go back to GQ1/2 or BSBS.

- Ix

GQ 3 and FAI meet my needs.

Mobius so might I ask what's your beef with range estimation?

Some of my friends in our gaming group was better at guessing ranges than others(including myself).

There was a person in one of our games(and we were using the garage floor for the game)who figured out the size of the square tiles on the floor and he was hitting almost every single turn.

Thankfully he's not with our group anymore.

I have played GQ 3 as of late but I'm still not that good at that game for many reasons one main reason is that I have problems doing turns.

For me I need as much help as possible with the game since quite frankly I'm not that good at it.

Depending on the size of the action Battlestations! Battlestations! or GQ1/2, though I really must try GQ3.

What I look for, well I think David is spot on; I want the designer to have a clear vision of what level of command the player holds and build the game around that. lx also has a very good point about still wanting a narrative; players like to feel a game in the same way they read about real engagements (at least I do), so having an idea of critical hits gives that.

The reason why I must try GQ3 is largely based on what lx has to say about it above.

What about for air/surface actions? Or do people mostly just game surface only?

"So you play Action Stations with one boat per player?"

I have done in the past, and I worked up a slightly more detailed variant for that purpose (alas lost in the mists of time and a few house moves). It was great fun, especially in a semi campaign setting where there was a clear benefit in surviving each encounter

> What about for air/surface actions? Or do people mostly just game surface only?

I stick with board games for those, mainly "Flat Top", "Midway", and "Guadalcanal" from Avalon Hill. All the big decisions are made when the enemy is normally not in site and at very long range.

Ditto, for the same reasons. With the possible exception of BSBS, carrier battles will overwhelm most miniatures rules for surface actions or dogfights.

I toyed with using Guadalcanal as a battle generator for GQ games, but never did it.

- Ix

I have done in the past, and I worked up a slightly more detailed variant for that purpose (alas lost in the mists of time and a few house moves). It was great fun, especially in a semi campaign setting where there was a clear benefit in surviving each encounter

That does sound fun. If someone invents affordable teleportation, you're invited to play weekly games in California. :-)

- Ix

Mobius so might I ask what's your beef with range estimation?
Well one it doesn't reflect the ranging systems of any WWII capital ship.
Two, I have played it on a floor with a 9" square repeating pattern and using pythagoras was devastating. So what is the solution, no counting squares, no calculator, no math?
Besides, who are you playing the captain or the gunnery officer? And if the gunnery officer why shouldn't you be allowed to use ranging equipment or processes? Just silly.
Why not roll marbles from the sideline and see if they hit a ship?

In one post someone is complaining about resolving shell by shell damage, then what is finding the range for? But, shell by shell hits.

Range "guestimation" is out for me(ie Seekrieg). that's what my ship's gunnery officers are for.
I use a simple set for large battles, such as Midway, and a more complex set for smaller battles, such as River Platte, or even Empress Augusta Bay. Namely GQ1 for the former, and Command at Sea for the latter.

Mobius in Clear for Action a Battleship like Yamato is shooting at a target let's say 100 inches for example.

So you have 9 shells and in the rules you can space them out like an inch or 1/2 inch apart and depending on if you're close to target you might get 2-3 hits so if you're pretty good at guessing the range you'll do very well or very bad.

One of our gamers in the group who knew a good deal about Computers took the rules and all we had to do was let him know how many shells or torpedos we shot and after typing in all the info the computer would do the dice rolling for you so all you have to do was pick a range and see if you're close.

Nevertheless, range estimation does not, in any form or way, represent the way gunfire was resolved for WWI or WWII period ships. And for torpedo fire, even less so. You basically replace a very sophisticated system of fire direction with "I think the range is about this". That's fine for playing some games (like Fletcher Platt's original game) as an homage to those early games. But it has no place in any modern set of rules.

First thing I look for in a set of rules is a system that produces historically viable results. Kinda obvious, but there are far too many rules that produce results that can only be termed as "interesting" (ie, grossly ahistorical).

Second, a rule system that is intuitive and simple to execute. That does not mean "simple" rules, however. Rather that means a set rules that have a high degree of "elegance" in their design and execution, so that you're "commanding your ships" and not "playing the rules" without bogging down in unnecessary detail.

Third, as David already mentioned, rules that properly represent the command level presented.

As to what is still needed…. A workable torpedo combat system. Currently, NO set of rules that I've played (and I've been doing it for 30+ years and have played seemingly every set that's come out in that time) has a torpedo combat system that is even remotely representative of the real thing. And, frankly, given the nature of the beast, I sincerely doubt that any system is possible.

I played GQ3 a few months ago for the first time and even though my torp hit dead on, it didn't. Perplexing.

Perplexing? I'd call that a normal result. Keep in mind, the IJN in the Solomons achieved single digit hit rates (5% to 6%, IIRC). And that was with the best trained crews using the best doctrine and best equipment of the time. Another example: When Doretshire was ordered to torpedo the then dead in the water Bismarck, she fired two torpedoes from very close range. One missed.

Mobius in Clear for Action a Battleship like Yamato is shooting at a target let's say 100 inches for example.
So you have 9 shells and in the rules you can space them out like an inch or 1/2 inch apart and depending on if you're close to target you might get 2-3 hits so if you're pretty good at guessing the range you'll do very well or very bad.
Your example is a Charlie 12 says does not in any form represent the way gun fire was resolved in reality. Shells do not line up separated by 25 yards in a straight line perpendicular to the firing base at a distance of 5-20 miles. (Try that in any ground combat game.)

There is random dispersion within an area at that range. See Warship International , No. 3, 1991, Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the US Navy, 1920 – 1945 by W. J. Jurens

And do the rules require you to guess the distance that the ship will be at after the next move? Because long range shells may take over 20 seconds to hit.

As to what is still needed…. A workable torpedo combat system. Currently, NO set of rules that I've played (and I've been doing it for 30+ years and have played seemingly every set that's come out in that time) has a torpedo combat system that is even remotely representative of the real thing. And, frankly, given the nature of the beast, I sincerely doubt that any system is possible.

For my naval rules I designed a new way to handle torpedo combat. It is based on the geometry from a look-down perspective not fire from a ship's perspective.
link
Free but

Convoy battles do require you build a piece of specialized equipment.
link
Parts and labor not included.

Mobius Clear for Action was by no means a perfect set of rules but it worked for our group.

You don't have to have a super complex set of rules for it to work.

And I heard that the authors of Clear for Action have been working on a new version of the rules but I don't anymore details.

Mobius Clear for Action was by no means a perfect set of rules but it worked for our group.

What I've noticed is that once a group that plays naval selects a set of rules and a scale they rarely change. At game conventions the same group plays the same naval battle with the same rules and models decade after decade. A new group has to form to change to a different set of naval rules and scale.

Sorry Mobius,
The group I was in started with Fletcher Pratt then went to Seapower (when the rules came out) as part of the group. I and the group drifted apart and I went into different miniatures for wargamming.

As I have been out of naval warfare for some time I noted the problems with Seapower and started to look for a replacement set of rules. Having reviewed several sets of rules (and playing them at conventions if I can) I settled on GQ 3 for WWI and WWII naval warfare. Now if I could only find a good set of pre dreadnought rules that cover 1880 thru 1908.

Mobius you must not know many game groups then.

Our group went thru MANY rules and scales.

Naval Rules we have used:

Clear for Action
Seapower
General Quarter's 1,2 and 3
Seekrieg
Fire When Ready(very good Pre-Dreadnought rules)

And these are the ones I remember now as for Naval ship scales there were:

1/2400th
1/1200th
1/3000th
1/6000th
1/4800th

We also did 1/600th scale ACW Naval as well using Smoke on the Water and Devil at the Helm.

Also it did not take up a decade to go thru a set of rules some rulesets didn't last that long.

Our gaming group started in 1979 or 1980 and we've been going on since then with some subtractions and additions to our group.

I almost forgot that we also do 3 other Naval oriented sets of rules:

StarBlazers Fleet Battle System(Space Naval Combat)
Star Wars Armada
Aeronef/Imperial Skies Victorian Sci-Fi Naval Combat

So as you can see Mobius we have many sets of rules with many scales of Naval Miniatures over the life of our group.

gamershs the rules Fire When Ready by David Manley should work for your Pre-Dreadnought rules.

Mobius you must not know many game groups then.

I guess not. I see the same group playing Fletcher Pratt year in. year out. Though some newer groups I guess have gone rogue and explore different sets, which I think is a good thing. I do like the smaller scales 1/4800 and 1/6000 as they don't lend themselves to range estimation as well.

Also, gamershs I don't know the difference between Seapower and SeaKrieg. I know I once played one or other at a con.

To be fair I used to play with a group a scenario with their favorite set of rules, them they would try the same scenario with mine.

One other thing as far as I know there's NO perfect set of WWII rules.

Oh there are very good ones and very bad ones and other's in between.

Then there are the rules which are very complex and hard to learn.

BSBS works for me, but I like fairly quick games and am not a rivet counter.

Tried Seekrieg 5 at convention and was Japanese at night in 1942 (action where 2 Japanese Kongo class BBs ran int 2 American BBs). Had 2 destroyers and light cruiser. Spotted 2 American destroyers and opened fire but did not launch torpedoes (thought it would be a waste as next turn would be turning away and figured Americans would do the same). Was maxed on speed and turned away but all three of my ships were hit by torpedoes from AMERICAN destroyers at night in 1942. Did hit American destroyers with shells and was told that shell hit galley and started a fire.Too much detail being tracked which caused the game to drag out.

In Seapower you tracked your ammunition/torpedoes fired and diced off to see how many shells/torpedoes hit. Unless you got a critical hit each shell/torpedo did a certain percentage damage and your ship loses speed and guns dependent on the percentage damage. Not bad rules but everything is percentage based so if you have 10 guns and reach 10% then you loose one gun even if guns are in 2 gun turrets.

gamershs,

Did hit American destroyers with shells and was told that shell hit galley and started a fire.
…your ship loses speed and guns dependent on the percentage damage.

That does seem inconsistent. If it is going to give specific damage than % shouldn't matter. If it is going to do specific damage then only that damage should be recorded.

In my rules the main damage tables result in hull/floatation and gunnery damage.

I prefer rules that give all the necessary information for me to stat up ships myself from my reference books.

Its frustrating to buy a set of rules only to find you've got to buy supplements A and B just to fight a particular action.