"Battle Stations! playtest at Nat'l WW2 Museum" Topic

Well we had pretty severe weather in Louisiana yesterday, but got in a ‘slightly reduced in size' version of The Battle of the Java Sea with me playing the ABDA force vs. Clay Cooper and Bryan Vieages playing Japs using Battle Stations! Battle Stations! Rules.

The game started well as I closed on Bryan's Lt Cruiser/Destroyer force which had separated from Clay's Hvy Cruiser/Destroyer force. I shot up a couple of destroyers and even got lucky sinking one on a critical hit. I was concentrating fire pretty well and doing 3-4 hits per ship I was shooting at each turn, but then we found the real problem of the rules set. Each ‘hit' gets a saving throw, representing the work of Damage Control Parties, for the Allies it was 1-8 on a d20, but for the Japanese it was 1-16 on a d-20. Twice, their ships (one a heavy cruiser) shrugged off 4 hits. And those numbers never change, even if one hit succeeds, there is no effect on the Damage Control Parties. So the next turn, if you get hits, they still have the same save!

Between that and their reload capacity on better torpedoes, I was doomed. I was thankful I luckily got initiative each turn and could react, but no matter how I maneuvered for multiple shots, their saves made my efforts meaningless. I was well on the way to losing when we decided to leave so we could best insure getting home against the coming typhoon.

I recommend dropping the save number either: 1) by one each turn of the game, or 2) each time there's a hit to be ‘saved'. This would represent the fact that D.C. parties are now engaged elsewhere and can't respond. (Clay thinks 80% saves are unreasonable and we should just drop the # for the Japanese to begin with.)

Other than that, the flow and ease of learning the game system made it quite reasonable for a Public Education game and we hope to run Java Sea in late Feb or early March.

Ideas/recommendations welcome!

Walt Burgoyne

Education Programs Coordinator

The National World War II Museum

945 Magazine Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Ph: 504-527-6012 x 333

Fax: 504-527-6088

Web: nationalww2museum.org

You might want to give Victory at Sea a try for the general public.

Its a very easy to pick up and fun rules system that focuses on fast, enjoyable gameplay over detail. Easier than Battlestations from what I have heard. It would be an excellent game for a convention, or a museum offering. :)

Check it out here: mongoosepublishing.com

Here is a thread discussing it. . .

TMP link

80% save does seem a bit steep. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

I am a huge fan of these rules.

First, keep in mind that the Damage Control numbers do not just reflect the work of Damage Control Patries, they also reflect the relative advanceness of that nations fleet. Things such as age of ships, training of crew, experience of crew, modern ship designs etc. I doubt anyone would argue that Japan had the most modern and experienced combat fleet in 1941.

Second, according to the Chronology of the War at Sea, the Battle of the Java Sea occured between 25 February and 9 March 1942, not 1941. So you should have had Japanese Damage Control Numbers of 1-14 and Allied numbers of 1-12 for the British and 1-8 for the Dutch and other Allies. I think maybe you were looking at the wrong column.

Third, if your only complaint after a large battle is that their damage control number was too high in your opinion, that is both pretty good and easily rectifiable. Just change it to what you feel is appropriate.

Lastly, I am not a fan of Victory at Sea by Mongoose. I have played it several times and do not feel it accurately represents naval combat during WWII. However, for your purposes I will address it this way. Each ship in a force would require a data sheet showing its remaining armor and crew factors, which would require the player to mark off damage as it occurs for each ship. If a player is running six ships, he has six sheets.

If you feel that a bunch of paperwork is better for the public education setting you will be using your chosen set of rules in then good luck. Personally I think Battle Stations would be perfect given the "no paperwork" style of the rules.

Hope I helped,

Pat

I have not played VAS yet, but agree that for a public demonstration at a museum, there is an attraction to no paperwork…. Quite a big one I would think..

Andy

I like the idea of reducing the DC effectiveness each time it is required, since it does sound logical that the DC parties would be otherwise involved elsewhere, so unable to respond to so many hits.

Keep in mind though that the gunnery and speed also decrease with damage. This can reflect either damaged guns, or gun crews being required to work as damage control parties to stave off sinking.

One thing to remember is that the damage control does not repair damage, it prevents it, like a saving throw. Once a ship takes damage, it is permanent as far as your game is concerned. So once gunnery is reduced by 1/3 and speed by 1/2, it is there for the duration.

I would not be opposed to reducing the DC# once the ship takes permanent damage, but remember that gunnery and speed are already reduced.

Good ideas, all.
I hope you will all be able to join us at "Heat of Battle – The National WW2 Museum Wargame Convention – Aug 24-26, where we will have board and miniatures (and possibly computer) wargames, all WW2, all theatres, air, land and sea, and as many rules sets as we can fit! More info to follow. Keep tabs at our website over the next months.
I do like reduced paperwork. We have several kids 12-16 who gather around with their families and I like to tell them they can captain a ship (or fly a plane or move a squad) themselves if they/their families can give me 15 min for a rules intro.
But they often have to leave after an hour. So no paperwork is best.
Looking at the wrong #'s was probably just a goof. Makes me feel better, though.
We did cut down on gunnery/speed effectiveness w/ damage.

I'd point out that the damage control numbers vary by nation by year. In early 42, the Dutch and US are pretty bad and the Japanese are at their peak. Since every ship dies on the fourth hit, the damage control 'save' is as more a complex game mechanic to adjust a very high level (4 steps and gone, no paperwork) damage system towards historical outcomes. I prefer Battle Stations for large fleet engagements. And think this system will really come into its' own with WW1 fleets with 10-30 BB's on a side. For typical WW2 cruiser/destroyer actions, I think General Quarters 3 (or even GQ1) would be best.

Several naval enthusiasts determined that BattleStations was best for what we do on weekends for general public observation and involvement (trying to use the museum to grow the gaming hobby.)
I thought it worked well, though a GM will be needed to help decipher gun vs. armor for teenage newbies when we run it in late Feb/early Mar here at the museum.
Regarding other rules, we hope to have a few different rules sets/games going at our August Convention, including GQ. Both large and small actions.
We may have a chance to run BattleStations/Java Sea also at CoastCon in mid-March in Biloxi, Mississippi.
Check out their website.

I had to miss the WWII Museum test game, even though I was supposed to be running it, because of car trouble, but I'm hoping to be able to run this scenario with the full-sized fleets at the CoastCon January Game Day, which will be held on January 20 at the Fountainbleu Center in Ocean Springs MS.

Along with the suggestions posted by members of this group I want to make it much more time-consuming for the Japanese to reload their torpedo tubes – the current rules allow for reloading faster than would be possible at a dead stop on a calm sea in clear weather with no enemy action, much less in foul weather, in the dark, while maneuvering, which is what happened at Java Sea.

FWIW, my original choice for this game was GQ3 but one of the parameters was that the rules needed to be accessible to the average 12-year-old. I pointed out to Walt that when dealing with gamers I usually aimed for the average 8-year-old but would set the bar higher if that would make him happy. I suspect GQ1 might fill the bill as would VAS, although I didn't find the VAS rules published in Omens & Portents all that interesting – I'll know for sure when my copy arrives. I also looked at some of the lesser-known rulesets such as "Sea Wars Fleet Actions" from A&A but finally decided on BSBS because of there is no paperwork involved.

With any luck, this particular game will be run at January Game Day, at the National WWII Museum as close as possible to the anniversary of the actual battle -probably be the first weekend in March-, and at CoastCon. For Bayou Wars in June I may try a GQ3 version.

LT

"Along with the suggestions posted by members of this group I want to make it much more time-consuming for the Japanese to reload their torpedo tubes – the current rules allow for reloading faster than would be possible at a dead stop on a calm sea in clear weather with no enemy action, much less in foul weather, in the dark, while maneuvering, which is what happened at Java Sea."

Foul weather at Java Sea?

>Foul weather at Java Sea?

Okay, maybe I'm overstating the foulness of the weather just a little. Call it dramatic hyperbole.

Actually, I have read descriptions of the wind/wave conditions at Java Sea that range on the Beaufort scale from 1 to 5, depending on the author. I could paddle a kayak in Force 5 conditions but I wouldn't want to try reloading torpedo tubes while in the presence of the enemy.

LT

Based on what I read, in Dutch publications, it was a calm moonlit night.
The disaster of Java sea came from exhausted crews, lack of coordination between ships from many different navy's, and Japanese superiority in both Torpedoes and night-fighting (when Exeter disengaged the force also lost it's only radar equipped vessel).
So I wonder, and I know nothing of "Battle Stations!", if the mentioned "save" mechanism isn't an artificial way to produce historical accurate results, which would be a bad thing, of course.

Well, the weather at Java Sea seems to vary according to whose report you read. In any event, I don't believe I stated or implied that it had any significant effect on the outcome of the battle.

My objection to the torpedo reload rules is based on the fact that a vessel that carries reloads is capable, under these rules, of launching a torpedo salvo in one turn, reloading, and launching a second salvo in the very next turn. I believe this gives some ships capabilities they did not actually have and produces non-historical results.

Which would be a bad thing, of course.

As to the repair rules, I think we need to play the rules a few more times, including scenarios where the Allies don't suck quite so badly, before making any blanket changes. In the case of the Java Sea scenario, the fact that this is going to be as a demo game for any audience largely unfamiliar with wargaming may necessitate toning down the Japanese advantage a little just to insure that the game lasts long enough to be interesting.

LT

Using the correct save numbers (1942 vs 1941) would've changed the game significantly, as I was concentrating fire and putting between 4-7 'hits' on individual Japanese ships each turn. Trouble was, they saved almost all of them each turn with 80% success probability (1-16 on d20). Toning it down to 1-14 would've helped.
With these correct numbers, the game will be (marginally) more balanced. It'll be interesting to see what the Allies do to counter Japanese superiority (which should be mentioned – as advance intelligence – in every game.)
Of course, was this the first time Long Lances and other examples of superiority had been encountered?

"My objection to the torpedo reload rules is based on the fact that a vessel that carries reloads is capable, under these rules, of launching a torpedo salvo in one turn, reloading, and launching a second salvo in the very next turn. I believe this gives some ships capabilities they did not actually have and produces non-historical results."

Depends on how long a turn is supposed to be, IIRC it took about fifteen minutes to reload the type 93's.

As the almost 6,000 lbs torps were, due to being oxygen fuelled, highly volatile I think rules should include the possibility for something unpleasant to happen (as in sinking the Destroyer) when reloading them in bad weather and/or combat.

"As to the repair rules, I think we need to play the rules a few more times, including scenarios where the Allies don't suck quite so badly, before making any blanket changes. In the case of the Java Sea scenario, the fact that this is going to be as a demo game for any audience largely unfamiliar with wargaming may necessitate toning down the Japanese advantage a little just to insure that the game lasts long enough to be interesting."

Yep, historically accurate results surely come second place in this case ;o)

"Of course, was this the first time Long Lances and other examples of superiority had been encountered?"

Java Sea was the first major surface action in the pacific theatre.

The problem with applying real-world time scales to gaming is that you end up with peculiar results. In the case of BSBS, the ability to reload torpedoes between turns may be strictly correct if each turn is over 15 minutes long but in game terms has the effect allowing some ships to fire full salvoes three turns in a row of they want, effectively giving each ship a torpedo-firing machinegun. Since we know that this was not the case in the real world, perhaps we need to look to a minor adjustment of the rules to produce an historically accurate result.

LT

Yep, that's one of the reasons I think single turns should never equal more than a few minutes in a simulation.
There are a lot of ways to "cure" this.
You could, for instance simply state reloading takes two turns. In addition, or instead, you could state you cannot reload while manoeuvring and/or under fire. You could also ad you can reload within a single turn, but at the risk of blowing up the ship, and increase this risk for any added difficulty, like doing so during manoeuvring and/or being under fire.
The possibilities are sheer endless.

Actually I have run Battle Station games at many conventions like Historicon and have had novice players playing the game within fifteen minutes with little instruction. They lend themselves to very easily to any kind of public event, damage is simple to track (there are only four levels)and combat and movement is easy to follow. If anyone has questions don't hesitate to ask me I am the author of Battle Stations.

As for damage control, remeber at the battle of Java Sea the Japanese were at their height, but I might point out the battle occurred in 1942 so the die roll is only 1-14 for damage control, goes down to 1-12 in 1943 and 1-10 in 1944. The poor damage control of the Allies reflects their lack of preparedness for battle. Historically the Allies were creamed in this battle and unless the Allied player is very careful he to will suffer a terrible defeat especially with those deadly long lance torpedoes coming towards him.

"If anyone has questions don't hesitate to ask me I am the author of Battle Stations."
"The poor damage control of the Allies reflects their lack of preparedness for battle."

So the "damage control" save represents more than diminishing the adverse effects of enemy hits, and does so to reduce the rules-load and speed up game play.
Right?

Correct.

Larry Tuohy will run Battle Stations Java Sea at the CoastCon Game Day, this Sat at the Fontainbleau Community Center in Ocean Spgs, MS. See the CoastCon website for details/directions.
We will run it again as a Public Education game on Mar 3 and I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected at Heat of Battle – The National World War II Museum Wargame Convention on Aug 24-26 this year.

Well, the latest Java Sea game is done and it worked out pretty well. Admittedly, it would take an act of (insert favorite deity here) for the Japanese to lose but with a little luck the Allies can better the ABDA squadron's performance; in this case, both Sendai class CLs went to the bottom, while the Allies got Houston, Exeter, and Perth off the table (after the inevitable morale failure). Of course, this was at the cost of the entire Dutch force and all the US and British destroyers but them's the breaks.

After all the huffing and puffing about repair rolls, the only change I made for this scenario was to give the Dutch the same 1-10 roll as the Americans (apparently the guys who played at the Museum used the 1-8 roll for the entire ABDA force; no wonder they got creamed!).

I think torpedoes are way too accurate, e.g. at Java Sea the weakest salvo of Type 93s the Japanese have still has a 20% chance of hitting Houston, the most heavily-armored Allied ship, at extreme range. That seems a bit extreme, given that of the 152 torpedoes fired by the Japanese during the actual battle, 149 missed. Still, I'm not going to tamper with the rules too much until we've played a few more games.

A couple of notes on the Java Sea scenario in the BSBS rulebook (which I didn't use): sharp-eyed readers may have noticed that the force list shows 14 Japanese destroyers but the deployment only lists 10. The other four were with the heavy cruisers. Also, one of the British destroyers is more powerful than the other two: HMS Jupiter was a "J" class, not an "A-I".

And, as I think has been brought up somewhere above, the weather was not rough.

LT