"Our first 'official' game of Nimitz - Tokyo Express!" Topic

sparkerswargames.blogspot.com/2023/03/nimitz-tokyo-express.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR0XOjwH4pUi82EjpS4RKHlGRT5rdVp0YTGDUxX_dcWY_XJGZ8voWA25hfo

Beautiful visuals, and nice background presentation – worthy of a glossy mag article IMO.

If I were into naval gaming, I'd be all over Nimitz. I did forward Sam's first teaser emailer out to a few friends last year, while you guys were probably wrapping up your playtesting contributions.

Thanks for the battle link here, and to the Wollongong Wargamers contributions to the rules product and this hobby.

I'm going to have my first game of Nimitz in a couple weeks. Really looking forward to it. I'll run Denmark Strait solo before hand to make sure I have a handle on the rules but it looks pretty straightforward and fun.

Nice post. Please talk about movement rates and weapons ranges. Everything looks very close.

@79thPA

I think this is always an issue with playing naval games on table tops, especially if you opt for larger scale models. My own collection is 1/3000 scale these look a little silly, even on an 8x5 table," with the rules I use, where one foot represents about 5000 yards. Not tried Nimitz yet, but as that suggests a 6x4 table, I assume ground scale may be even greater than in rules I use, hence the rather crowded look of the game described.

Thanks all for your kind comments!

As to movement rates and weapons ranges looking close. Yes, as SD2 alludes, Sam realised early on that whatever scale of model you use, ground scale and miniature scale are always going to be ludicrously out! With a goal of completing a game within 2 hours, and wanting the fleets to quickly close, for the tactical basic game, rather than take a traditional linear approach, he worked backwards from the desired 'effects'. Incidentally rather like the latest trend in the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' where design, procurement and organisation work backwards from the effects that are desired rather than in traditional pigeonholes.

So the game time represented by a turn focuses on a period of time in which a significant segment of movement, firing and damage could occur. Thus movement focusses on differentiating speeds and allowing responses, and gunnery gives a reasonable chance of achieving a hit and damage each turn. But overall, say in a 'stern chase' scenario, across a game a fast ship should be able to outstrip a slower pursuing ship.

Weapons ranges for gunnery focus on two bands – sub point 'blank direct' fire where the shell is going to strike the target's armour more or less perpendicularly, and long range plunging fire where there is a significant chance the shell will plunge into deck armour.

In short, don't think of each turn as a set period in time and space, but rather think of it as a phase in a surface engagement: meeting, then one side attempting to close and the other attempting to stand off, a couple of turns of gunfire and torpedo runs, then breaking off…

I have my copy but have just started to peruse. It would appear battles are played on a standard 4x6 table.

Thanks for the review. I was on the fence regarding another set of rules, but I have ordered these and will give them a try.

Printed them off. I also listed to Sam's podcast at the Honour website which introduces the rules, cards and QRS to you. I liked it. Another podcast will be coming about the campaign section. He said you just need the cards and QRS to actually run a game. I like that idea a lot!

Thanks

John