"Naval Thunder? A stepping stone or a solid game?" Topic

I am new to naval wargaming. I've recently started playing Naval Thunder in the WWI era and really enjoyed it, but it does seem a little lacking in depth. Recently someone told me the GQII is a vastly better game, I asked about GQIII but they insisted GQII was the way to go.

Here is my question for the forum: is Naval Thunder a good entry level game, with GQII or III providing a better experience for more experience players? Or is that just one man's opinion?

If you recommended moving on from Naval Thunder, since I like the WWI era should I stick will GQII? Or is GQIIIs WWI game Action Imminent the better rules for WWI era? Thanks!

In depth would be the Command at Sea series or Seekrieg V. GQ II is not in depth. Fun, but pretty basic.

Naval Thunder is more detailed than GQII, with GQIII being more detailed and a step up in complexity (and simulation) to Naval Thunder or GQII.

I really enjoy Naval Thunder as it hits sweet spot for me and try as I might I've just never clicked with GQIII (I keep trying though).

Seekrieg is definitely a major step up in complexity from GQIII.

You might also look to David Manley's various games on Wargame Vault as he has a variety of complexities to his games and one might suit you.

A couple things to note:

• GQ2 and GQ3 are completely different systems. The only things they share is an author, a title, and a ground scale. Literally everything else I can think of is changed.
  
• GQ3 is technically for WWII; the version of GQ3 for WWI is called "Fleet Action Imminent". It contained enough rules changes and period-specific flourishes to merit a complete rulebook with a new name.

I actually consider GQ2 and NT to be about the same complexity level. Preference for one over the other is going to devolve to the personal biases of the gamer. You really need to try both to decide.

I played enough GQ2 to get irritated by some of the unnecessarily clunky aspects of the rules as printed, so I did quite a bit of work to enhance and streamline the game. This kind of personalization can also change one's attitude about a game.

The GQ3 system has a much steeper learning curve, but I've found that it actually plays at just about the same speed as GQ2 or NT if all the players are experienced. Of course, I also have a bunch of FAI streamlining and enhancements to speed up FAI as well.

- Ix

"In depth would be the Command at Sea series . . ." Agree with this. I read through my Command at Sea rules and ended up selling because nobody would play with that level of detail. I like NT a lot and while it doesn't have the level of detail of CaS it's more playable in an evening and much easier to get non-naval gamers to play. I played a couple GQ games and it didn't feel significantly different than NT. I'm keeping NT as my base for naval games. I especially like the air and sub rules, they are relevant but it's easy to handle them.

NT and their variants are our rules of choice for naval games 1900-1945. The various GQ systems never resonated with me, to the point of openly disliking GQIII. I have collected all the Command at Sea pieces, again from 1900-1945. We played it for a time and mostly enjoyed it. Definitely a step up in detail and complexity from the first two. Seekrieg V is the ultimate realistic game. We did it for a couple of years and could never finish a game. Far too many charts for our taste though again, it is the defining game for realism.

GQ III for our group. REALLY like FAI for WW I. I hope for a pre-dread set from this line.

Naval Thunder is a good system for surface gun & torpedo action, we played many good games in both WW1 and WW2.

In the end though, we wanted the full breadth of action that GQIII offers.

NT is a nice balance of enough individuality to give feel and simple enough for an easy learning curve.

GQ1/2 give a good enough game and allows for carrier battles, the campaign module is excellent.

Command at Sea get a bit obsessive at times (look at the torpedo tables), but their research is most impressive and CaS may be the only way to run a detailed ASW game.

One big advantage of GQ3 is the work that has gone into the ergonomics – the ship logs, amazing amount of information on a small space, and the national combat tables, makes each fleet unique without a fistful of modifiers.

Horses for courses and I do own them all, but only have Seekrieg IV.

Cheers
David

GQ III for our group. REALLY like FAI for WW I. I hope for a pre-dread set from this line.

Me too, but L.L. Gill has directly stated he's not going to do it. Someone else will have to do it.

I've had this as a personal project for years, but never got it to the point of playability. There are quite a few snags that make the project more than just a few special gunnery tables and new rosters:

• The GQ use of "classes" to define armor is anachronistic, and insufficient to cover a period full of experimental armor schemes and varying armor qualities.
  
• The resistance to flooding and torpedoes varied widely with hull designs, which at least requires some new hull classification types.
  
• There were a lot of non-standardized gun designs still in use. Many guns could only load at certain angles, some guns that were extremely slow to load, gun caliber was not quite a clear indication of shell power or armor penetration, etc. These issues can make a QRC really dense or big.

The GQ3 roster system that treats all hits as special hits is the best starting point for the pre-dreadnought period I've seen, but making a pre-dreadnought version of GQ3 is actually quite a bit of work.

- Ix

GQII and GQIII are both very good games, but I prefer Naval Thunder. GQII is good for very large games because of speed of play, but to me in lacks some depth. GQIII requires more time per combatant ship, but I find it more satisfying. Naval Thunder strikes an excellent balance of speed and depth.

Also, Naval Thunder has better treatment of pre-dreadnoughts, my common era of choice.

@ Yellow Admiral & Shagnasty,

I've also spend some time trying to modify GQ III for pre-dreadnoughts, but it was a much more complex task than it first appeared. I don't remember much of the specific challenges, but I recall under the GQ III system adjustments to one or two variables to match pre-dreadnought era conditions would result in unwanted consequences elsewhere in the system.

It could be done, but it would require a top-to-bottom reworking, rather than merely a few tweaks.

Bingo. It's not a simple project.

Define "depth". ;-)

Naval Thunder is the set of rules I prefer because it makes you think in terms of platform role. GQ II is probably better for larger games but can be a little on the bland side. GQ III appears to be great if you can jump the hurdle of actually reading it (I tried and failed several times).

Carrier battles really need their own specialised set of rules IMHO.