"Battle Stations! FAQs If You Have Questions Just Ask" Topic

Hello,

I am the author of Battle Stations, so if you questions of any kind I will be happy to answer them.
By the way a turn in Battle Stations is approximately 30 minutes so a lot can happen in one turn.
Paul

Paul,

It is great to have you aboard! I am a huge fan of the rules!

What can we expect in Battlestations' future?

In reference to "on-table" movement for aircraft, I computed the distance as 22" per speed point since the rules weren't clear on how on-table movement was conducted.

Can you elaborate on aircraft operations a bit such as when to launch and recover aircraft and distances moved on the table? I assumed launch and recovery was during movement and handled movement as indicated above, but would like the "official" version.

Thanks,

Pat
St. Louis, MO

Welcome Paul. You've been helpful to me with questions directly via e-mail and open to adjustments (like the range on some of the R-class that never got 30 degree elevation). I'm like alot of folks and think WW1 is going to be exciting since this should lierally play Jutland in 2-3 hours.

I remember a question I meant to ask. Some aircraft carriers have a number of flights plus a number of reserves. How does that work? Does the original flights have to get shot down and then they reserves replace them, or is it for something else.

Ta

Andy

Oh, right, the WW2 naval Battle Stations, not the campy spaceship game.

How do you feel about the guys at Gorilla Games, anyway? :)

Good to have you aboard, Paul. I just want to second the sentiment for a WWI version. I see BS,BS as perfect for the very large actions typical of the period. I also think its very good for painlessly introducing new players to naval gaming (try that with CaS!).

MB

Welcome aboard Paul. I am really getting into Battle Stations. Great game. My question – can you see yourself doing a modern version of Battle Stations?

@ Hundvig

The sci-fi version is "Battlestations", all one word. The naval game is "Battle Stations, Battlestations."

Also, the sci-fi game has been around since at least GAMA in March of 2003. I don't know when it was copyrighted, nor do I know when BS, BS was copyrighted since I am at work and can't get to either set of rules at the moment.

I do believe BS, BS came out sometime last year though, or late 2005.

Do you really think there is an infringement here?

Either way I am a huge fan of both unrelated rule sets!

edit:

The sci-fi version is "Battlestations", all one word. The naval game is "Battle Stations, Battle Stations."

Sorry about that.

>Do you really think there is an infringement here?

You can't copyright a title. So, no infringement either present or, in fact, possible.

LT

Thanks for the greetings!

As for copyright infringement, there was a naval rule set which came out in the 1970s which had the title of Battlestations this is why we chose the Battle Stations! Battle Stations! title to avoid any confusion or possible copyright complaints. Copyrights do run out if I remember correctly it is a 15 to 30 year period.

Future publications are in the following order and are dependent, of course, on the success of the current rule set.

WW2 Carrier scenarios book which will also have some surface scenarios, some scenarios will by hypotheticals like a major German fleet sortie with the carrier Graf Zeppelin or a last gasp Japanese carrier sortie in the Pacific with Shinano, Yamato's sister carrier, and the Unryu class fleet carriers which historically never had a chance to fight as carriers against the Allies. It will also include more aircraft statistics as well as which kind of aircraft go on which kind of carriers.

WW1 scenarios and charts book with the necessary rules to use the same system for WW1.

After this there are no plans although the publisher suggested the Spanish American War period which of course would include the Russo Japanese War. A friend suggested that I might consider the age of sail but we will have to see how everything works out. And of course there is also the Modern period which has always intrigued me especially after the Falklands campaign.

Unknown to me the publisher decided to split the original counter sheet so unfortunately the sheet which comes with the rule set excludes some of the counters all I can do is apologize for this. The remaining part of the counter sheet will come out with the WW2 scenario book. It will have aircraft counters which you can place on the carrier deck to indicate that the aircraft are refueling and rearming.

Hi Pat,

I purposely left the aircraft movement open ended so players would have some flexibility. I like your 22" solution so I will probably adopt it as the official conversion number if you don't mind.

Hi Mckinstry,

Yes, I remember your R class question, this is a classic case of the publisher's editor (who was supposed to be a naval expert) not catching this and sadly I being too immersed in the project's details to spot it myself. Here is my "R" class correction for those of you who have not seen it:

British R Battleship Class Designer Correction:
Apparently only Resolution had the range improvement in 1942 which allowed shooting out to 30,000 yards. The new range (or old range if you will) should be 5-20-25 this will definitely make the R class inferior to their cousins the Queen Elizabeths.

I want to also note here that the Japanese Kongo class should have the armor protection of B12/C9, the Kongos were battlecruisers and had significantly less armor protection in the belt and deck. Within the rule book the scenario is correct while the main charts have the error.

I have been told by fellow designers that errors are the norm but being a perfectionist I admit when they happen for whatever reason they still embarrass me!

As for Jutland in 2-3 hours that will depend on the skill level of the players and how suicidal the German play is. ; )

Hi Andy,

Aircraft reserves represent aircraft which needed to be assembled to be used. Thus you need to lose aircraft to make room for the stored aircraft.

Hi MB,

I know what you mean, I tried to run a Command at Sea game, which a wonderfully in-depth system and it totally flopped at the club meeting. This negative experience led me to develop Battle Stations! Battle Stations! When I first ran the ancestor of BS! BS! at a club meeting it quickly became very popular and I had one guy come up to me, and I know this sounds like bragging but it did happen, and said he had long ago sworn he would never play a naval game because of the paperwork, bookkeeping and tedium. Now every time I run a game at the club he always plays in my naval game. So, yes, it is a good intro level game and it is great if you don't have a lot of time for playing games.

Hi Rat of Tobruk,

Yes, I do see myself doing a modern version of the game but it is not in the immediate future.

A quick note concerning crossing the "T" and battle line modifiers, head on and tail on modifiers should be +1 to reflect that it is easier to hit a ship in this configuration, this seems to be controversial there are some who believe the opposite so please be aware of this. The battle line modifier of +2 was a last minute change which apparently did not get completely fixed in the rules but were on the reference cards. The purpose was to encourage players to fight in historical formations. Historically there was a distinct advantage in fighting in formation rather than every ship fighting on its own, certainly tracking the splashes was made considerably easier when ships were in battle line.

That's all for now, take care and happy gaming,
Paul

Thanks Paul. Will we be seeing you as a regular on TMP?

A quick note concerning crossing the "T" and battle line modifiers, head on and tail on modifiers should be +1 to reflect that it is easier to hit a ship in this configuration, this seems to be controversial there are some who believe the opposite so please be aware of this.

Can I suggest making this a modifier for guns only and leaving the negative modifier in place for torpedoes? The "down the throat" shot is the toughest one you can make with a torpedo and in BSBS torpedoes are already (IMHO) a bit more accurate, especially at extreme range, than the historical record would seem to support.

Aside from some minor quibbles of that sort, I think BSBS is exactly what I was looking for: a low-complexity ruleset we can use both to introduce non-gamers to naval gaming and to do fleet-sized actions without covering half the table with charts and log sheets.

LT

How much room do you need to play Battlestations?
I am just looking into thinking about playing some Naval Wargames and a game system that requires no paper work is just up my alley.

Thanks……………….Doug

I have been playing on my 8ft x 4ft pool table. I reckon an extra couple of ft to make it 8ft x 6ft would be perfect.

Can I suggest making this a modifier for guns only and leaving the negative modifier in place for torpedoes?

D'oh! I guess I should also suggest that I read the FAQ.

Larry

Hi Doug,

I usually play a game on a 5 by 6 foot table with a hex matt overlay. The hex matt is not for movement but rather to be used as a grid in case we need to shift the ships to center the action. I am a strong believer that the edge of the table is not the edge of the battlefield.

Hi Larry,
As for your suggestions as you may have already guessed I agree with you if you take a look at the FAQs and actually I like your tale or head on idea concerning the torpedoes (-1 modifier)and if you don't mind I would like to incorporate it in the errata section of the upcoming scenario book.
Paul

Does the hex overlay make guessing ranges a little easier? LOL since there is no premeasurement in the game.

Paul,

I have a couple of questions about the various factors associated with some of the aircraft listed. Actually, I was trying to calculate the factors for a Boston I and decided to see what the SM79 (only multi-engine land-based bomber in the lists) looked like. I was surprised to discover that the SM79, with its 2200 lb bomb load, has the same air v. ship rating (3) as the CR42, which carried 500 lb of bombs, and the Aichi "Jake", which carried no bombs at all, and half the factor (6) of the Re2001, a fighter that carried a single 250 lb bomb. Not to mention that, unusually for a torpedo bomber, the SM79 could carry two torpedoes but has no torpedo rating listed.

The speeds are equally confusing. The SM79, max speed 260 mph, gets a speed rating of 3 while the CR42, max speed 267 mph, gets an 8. The Nakajima "Kate" also has a speed of 8, even though its max speed is 225 mph (i.e., 35 mph slower than the SM79).

What am I missing here?

LT

I would also like to state that according to my sources the Nachi class heavy cruiser, is realy Myoko class Nachi was just a ship in that class. ………….Doug™

Doug, what you are referring to is really something that runs throughout reference books in that some give the ship name for a statistic that is variable. Some such as U.S. warships should get the "Alpha" tag by their inventory hull number logically, right? Well as an example some reference the Pensacola class (CA-24) of U.S. heavy cruisers for the hull number (my vote here btw) but it's sister-ship Salt Lake City (CA-25) was commissioned almost two months earlier. Thus, some books may call that class the "Salt Lake City" class because of that info. To complicate this a bit more, don't think that just because most navies did not use overt hull numbers (Britain did though on some DDs, right?) that this should be easy for them. There are as many as maybe four main historical traits in the "birth" of a ship- The keel laying date, the date the hull was launched, the date it was completed and finally the commissioning date. Based upon these variables, some books I have read list the head ship in your example as the Nachi, as it was commissioned Nov.26, 1928, and beat the Myoko's date of July 31, 1929. Most books might favor the Myoko, as it was the first of the class to be laid down, a month before the Nachi. That will be the source of your discrepancies, I'm afraid.

Another good case in point: I am currently working on building a Dutch squadron, an offshoot of the force I've put together to do Java Sea. My destroyer force consists of six ships, which are either four Van Ghent class and two Van Galen Class or six Admiralen class or – my favorite screwup – six de Ruyter class. The de Ruyter designation comes from a book whose author evidently didn't realize that the destroyer de Ruyter a. had its name changed to Van Ghent so that the original name could be given to the cruiser and b. wasn't the name ship for the class anyway (see below) so we can knock that one out immediately. The Van Ghent/Van Galen designation is the one most commonly used but the only difference between the two groups is that the Van Galens had a quad-40mm amidships in place of two 3" guns. The Royal Netherlands Navy, which I would tend to believe in this case, listed these ships as Batch 1 and Batch 2 of the Admiralen class.

So, yeah, you have to be careful when dealing with ship classes.

LT

LT

Re: the above. Just to make things a little murkier, there was another HNLMS Van Galen, which was the former HMS Noble, one of two British N-class destroyers purchased by the Dutch to replace losses in the Netherlands East Indies. Needless to say, it didn't resemble the original very much.

LT

In a similar trend, some might consider that the Brooklyn class light cruisers had nine ships, or just seven. The St. Louis and Helena were modified Brooklyns and had enclosed 5"/38 guns while the original seven had open 5"/25s. I look at these as two separate classes as the superstructures were changed from the original design and had a different machinery arrangement and the 5" guns were to an improved enclosed twin mount layout. Nonetheless, the microworks site calls them all Brooklyns (sigh)- link

Wow thanks for clarfication, I did not know how murky the class names were. I thought there was a uniform class ID system in place. LOL
Thanks…………..Doug

I'm just glad these people weren't asked to be on the panel that decided how to use green, amber and red lights on traffic signals, lol.

When I originally researched Battle Stations! I decided to use Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships as my core source for naming classes and organizing the charts since unlike many sources Conway's was comprehensive and captured all the ship types which would be included. As SciFi gamer and Brass1 have pointed out the name of the class is not always the first ship finished in the class and this no doubt can cause confusion. Furthermore, if the lead ship of the class was lost or broken up the class name could change and this did happen for a few classes between WW1 and WW2. Also some classes are artificially split by some authors into two separate classes because of an internal differences rather than external features. A perfect example is the Queen Mary which many authors consider the third Lion class. I have decided, for clarity, to make them separate classes in the WW1 rule version of Battle Stations, again following the example of Conway's. However I am not going to wait for GHQ to come out with a Queen Mary and plan to use a Lion class.

Hi Doug,

As for the hex overlay, it is totally optional, as you may already have guessed. I like to use it as a quick way of shifting the ships when the battle gets too close to one side of the table and since the table is not the edge of the world I have the players shift their ships over a foot or more. The hex grid is quite handy when shifting and yes if you want to eye the distance between your ships and the enemy that's fine too! ;) Of course the objective in not allowing pre-measuring is to speed up the game. I one time allowed pre-measurement in a game just to see whether it would really make a difference, it really did, a fifteen minute turn took at least one hour! Players pre-measured everything from movement to firing right down to the last millimeter! Certainly not historical although in reality I am certain Admirals would really appreciate to be able to plot their moves and fire at their leisure.

Hi Brass1,

Concerning the aircraft, I am going to take a look at my original research and will get back to you in a few days. This may be a translation problem, the publisher took my original work which was in Microsoft Word and plugged it into Page Maker then decided they would move it into In Design. The result has been one giant headache for me! Much of the errors in the ship charts I caught but the aircraft charts were supposed to be included in the scenario book so I never proofed them before they were published. This is one reason the Kamikaze numbers are missing and you may very well have found another problem. It is my intention to include updated and improved charts in the scenario book. If you have any suggestions for what should be included in the way of aircraft I am willing to listen. One note about air vs. air combat a number in () is less likely to kill, actually in the rules the difference should be 4 not 2 to achieve a kill. So give me a few days and I will provide you a detailed answer.

So Paul, can you give us a hint when we might see the WW1 version?

Paul,

Actually, I thought that "chart slippage" might be at least part of the problem. For the scenario book you might want to consider a few more land-based aircraft like the B-25, the Japanese navy bombers (Betty, Nell, etc), the Beaufort and Beaufighter, and so on. And flying boats. You can never have too many flying boats.

I'll try to have some more concrete suggestions in a day or two.

Meanwhile, the Japanese just kicked my butt again. It isn't easy being Dutch in 1942.

LT

Hi McKinstry,

The WW1 version will be submitted mid year then it is up to the publisher to lay out and ready the work for publication.

Hello,

I just spent a few hours going over my research and original charts.

The SM79 should have a speed of 8 the same as the CR42, the SM79 had two 10" torpedoes which should receive a T value of 9, and actually the CR42 was not alone for Italian bombers in carrying 2 torpedoes the Cant 1007 also carried two torpedoes. In the original research I did I down rated bombers severely but the SM79 should have a 6 as a B value this is something I am thinking about changing.

The Kate should have a speed of 7.

Actually the Aichi "Jake" could carry up to 500 pounds of bombs although it was a rare configuration as it was mostly used as a scout plane.

According to my information the Re 2001 could carry up to 500 pounds of bombs, admittedly the information on this plan is a bit vague and often sources cite the Re 2005 statistics rather than the Re 2001 further confusing the issue.

I plan to enclose a revised and updated aircraft charts in the upcoming scenario book so the above values may change. If you would like I can research the Boston bomber for you and send you the values. Hope this helps.

according to the book it gameplay lasts about 10min for each ship in the game. How about multi-player games how big of a game can I play with about 6-8 people in a 3-4 hour period?

Thanks……………..Doug

<wry>PFassbender, just make sure that if you update the Aichi that you call the modification "Jake 2.0" ok?</wry>

Hi Inari7,
The 10 minute rule actually was based on a multiplayer game. As long as each person controls one division of ships and the players are reasonably familiar with the rules (and no one pre measures) you should be fine time wise. The key, of course, is for each person to be focused on handling there own ships.

Hi SciFi Gamer,
Actually, I think I will call it Jake 2.1 for explosive reasons. ;)

Paul,

For the moment, my interest in the Boston stems from a "what-if" addition to the Java Sea battle – apparently the RAF launched a strike of 3 Boston IIIs and 8 Buffaloes at the Japanese invasion force, although they refused Doorman's requests for air cover for the ABDA force. I figured on giving the Bostons a speed of 9 (they were actually a bit faster) and a v.ship factor of 6 (2000 lb bomb load). The III could also carry a single torpedo but since the RAF planes in this case didn't, I haven't bothered to work out a torpedo value. I'd give it a +1 v. flak and a (4) or possibly (5) v. air (it did carry 7 guns but they were all .303 and 4 of them were fixed nose guns, not a great defensive arrangement for a bomber). This is for the light bomber version, of course; the night fighter would be a whole different ball-game.

Anyway, not knowing what criteria you use to determine factors (except speed, of course) I'm just guessing but, as I said, this is just for one game so I'm willing to wait for the scenario book to see how close I came.

Of course, being a gamer, I want the scenario book and the WWI version now!now!now!now!now!

LT

We have a bit of a wait LT. I e-mailed the publisher asking when the scenario book would be released. I got an e-mail back saying late 2007. I also asked for extra counter sheets. They said there are no plans of selling these.

I'd be interested in the WW1 version.
Will it be a supplement (with the WW2 version necessary to play) or will it be a stand-alone product in its own right.

Steve

Hello Everyone,

Sorry I have not been available my wife just gave birth to our first baby on Valentines Day and I made a mistake in downloading the new McAffee firewall software and would not let me log on.

Hi Steve,
The WW1 version will have different rules but the core of the rules will remain the same and therefore, although I cannot be 100% certain on this, you will probably have to own the Battle Stations! core rules since the publisher will probably not want to reprint the same rules in the WW1 version.

Hi Rat of Tobruk,
Strange about them not wanting to sell extra counters I will ask the owner of Decision about this because I cannot imagine them not having extras. As for the WW1 version it may, unfortunately, take until 2007 unless I can find a way to speed matters up in the layout process. I believe I have an extra counter sheet somewhere if anyone is interested.

Hi LT,
The scenario book will include a revised and expanded aircraft list, which I am working on now. I am planning on adding new value call "S" for strafing since aircraft like the B-25J proved to be quite formidable with their nose canon at killing ships. Are you talking about three squadrons of Bostons or 3 individual aircraft? If you desire to balance the scenario you could make the damage control die roll the same for both the Japanese and the Allies. You might also want to alter history a little and throw in the Prince of Wales and company, it might be an interesting historical twist (You could also add an additional fictional historical change by adding a Victorious class carrier, which in reality was supposed to accompany the PoW and Repulse).

So what would you all like to see in a WW1 version of Battle Stations?

Regards,
Paul

Paul,

Congratulations! Boy or girl? And what an appropriate day!

I believe the RAF strike at Java Sea was a single vic of 3 bombers plus the escorting Buffaloes. I doubt it would have much actual effect on the game but I'm tempted to throw it in to see how the Japanese players react.

I don't want to play too fast and loose with the real battle, however, because of the venue – the National World War II Museum needs to have some commitment to history, after all 8>)

What I do intend to do is put the majority of the experienced gamers on the Allied side and the majority of the rookies on the Japanese side. Hopefully, this will help offset the sizable Japanese advantages.

And it's a demonstration game, so if the outcome is pretty much foreordained I can just chalk it up to the educational nature of the event.

Of course, I'm already plotting to do Empress Augusta Bay later in the year. That should even things out a little for the Allies.

LT

Comment on British 15" gun ranges in WWII:

All my reference books indicate that the only 15" ships with 30 degree elevation were Hood, Renown, Warspite, Valiant, and Queen Elizabeth. The rest (Repulse, Malaya, Barham, and all 5 of the "R" class) retained 20 degree elevation throughout the war.

Quote from "British Battleships of WWII" by Raven & Roberts (page 378), which is my most recent reference:

(quote) As a large part of the fleet was armed with the 15-inch twin mounting, it was decided to try and improve its performance, and this was achieved by increasing the elevation of the guns from twenty degrees to thirty degrees, thereby increasing the range from 23,400 yards to 29,000 yards. It was also decided to modify the 15-inch projectiles, by providing them with a more streamlined ballistic cap, 6 crh instead of 4 crh, which increased the range still farther to 32,200 yards. Old shells were converted to take the new cap, but both 4 crh and 6 crh shells were manufactured until 1943, after which only the new type was produced.

The rate at which the 15-inch turrets could be converted to Mk 1 (N), with thirty degrees elevation and loading arrangements capable of accepting the new shell, was limited. Malaya, Barham, Repulse and the five ships of the Royal Sovereign class retained the twenty degree elevation, but the latter ships were not considered worthy of the expense involved. It was decided, however, to increase the range of these guns by increasing the weight of the charge from 428 poinds to 490 poinds. This was calculated as the maximum safe charge that the existing gun would accept, and at an elevation of twenty degrees, using the 6 crh shell and the 'Supercharge', the range of the 15-inch Mk I was increased to 28,700 yards. Supercharges were not used in the thirty degree mountings, presumably because the increased barrel wear was not considered acceptable in guns whose range had already been increased. (unquote)

I have no information as to whether these modified charges and shells were available to the "20 degree" ships from 1939, or were instead available later in the war (such as by 1942 in the Indian Ocean.

Paul, congrats on your "family expansion"! When you mentioned the B-25 model with the cannon, I'm sure that you meant the B-25H. It was the one with the 75mm mounted in the bombardier's crawlspace. That model moved the dorsal twin .50 turret forward so it could be used to add to the strafing mission. With as many as four pod-mounted guns outside the cockpit and up to four more guns in the upper nose front, a75mm gun and 10 ma-duces could be fielded. Probably the best overall model was the B-25J, replacing the cannon with four more .50's (eight in the nose, as I'm sure you are aware). I'd always been impressed by the ten .50's and a 20mm tail gun in the B-29 Superfortress and the thirteen .50 cal's in the famous B-17G Flying Fortress, but my fav plane was the J model with as many as 18 .50 cal. weapons, with fourteen firing forward as well as still being able to skip-bomb. One of my sets of books to treasure in a hard-bound set of the top secret strategic bombing survey publications that were printed and distributed by the gov't to the various war theaters. One of them describes the idea and development of the skip bombing technique and has the story of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. On a 12-sided die, the hit percentage was just about right on statiscally at 4-12. On a six-sider, you'd have to fudge it one way or the other (probably 3-6 to be 'kind').

Hello LT,

My new baby is a girl, but if I have my way she is going to be very interested in war gaming! LOL I agree with you concerning the historical accuracy of scenarios but many people don't feel the same way and desire game balance. You may have noticed that my scenarios are historically accurate and unfortunately for the Dutch all too accurate. In the case of your game I assume you will be using one squadron of Boston's and one of Buffaloes. This may somewhat overstate the Boston's but I suspect it will not matter. Are you planning on allowing the Bostons to attack at medium altitude or at high altitude? If you want you can give the Buffaloes a strafing value of one which would be a low level attack and might give the Japanese destroyers a bit of trouble.

Hello Hinds,

British R Battleship Class Designer Correction:
Apparently only Resolution had the range improvement in 1942 which allowed shooting out to 30,000 yards. The range should be 5-20-25 this will definitely make the R class inferior to their cousins the Queen Elizabeths.

Hello Scifi,
Thanks for the congrats. Considering how powerful the 50 cal was it was virtually a canon and could really tear up lightly protected ships. I already have the stats done for the B-17 and B-29 but I need to work on the B-25 variations.

Take care all,
Paul

One way to help out the ABDA force at Java Sea is to give them the USS Boise, which collected the same bad luck of the Indomitable when it ran afoul of an uncharted pinnacle. Save for a rock that wanted to be a part of the Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, the Boise might not have tipped the balance but would have provided 15 very quick-firing 6" naval rifles.

PFassbender,

Perhaps this isn't the thread for this discussion, but my point was that your rule for British 15" gun range may not be quite right. Given the info in Raven and Roberts which I quoted, it would appear that any British 15" gun ship could have ranged out to over 28k, if they had used the improved ammunition. This means, for example, that Repulse (whose turret elevation was not increased to 30 degrees) could do this in a refight of the 12/8/1941 South China Sea sortie.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your information that only the Resolution used this ammunition?

Mark Hinds (aka hindsTMP)

Hello all,
Paul I believe we spoke the other day on the phone. ( I purchased your russian fleet on E-bay ) I am a little confused as to why you referred to you as "knowing the game designer" instead of telling me it was you!! What the he77 was that all about??? Thats pretty darn weird if ya ask me!!! Then you went on to quiz me about Victory at Sea??? Not so weird now that I know you wrote Battle Stations!! I am not sure what your intent was by the smoke and mirror's but here's what it left me with. With the short comings we discussed with the other system I am interested in yours. I checked with some local game stores and none of them sell your rule set?? Where can I purchase them and how much do they cost. Bulldog

Hi Bulldog,
No harm meant and I certainly hope none at your end, I shall have to make it up to you! Perhaps you would like to attend one of my Thursday night military history lectures? I did not want to reveal my "secret identity" (no I am not a super hero) because I was really curious about why people like Victory at Sea so well. Personally of the two rule sets I think Battle Stations is superior in ease of play and historical accuracy (no surprise there!). However, I do admit there is room for improvement in the air combat realm which was partly intentional as I had a deadline to meet. You can find Battle Stations on ebay for a lot cheaper than the list price Battle Stations usually goes for around 23 while they retail at 39. You can look Battle Stations up on Decision Games' website too which has FAQs for the rules and you can also use the email on the site to contact me. I apologize for the deception I just really wanted some honest answers which I thank you for. If you want to talk further you can reach me at pgcooper1@hotmail.com.

Hello Mark,

I think we are working at cross purposes; my source is Richard Worth's Fleets of World War II. The information I provided earlier covered the 30 degree mount for the 15" guns using the old shell which improved range out to 30,180. According to Worth the new shell and the super charge that went with it could increase a 30 degree mounted 15" gun's range to 37,870 yards, but it seems that historically the two were not used together thus decreasing performance. Typically the unmodified R class and the Repulse had a range of 24,350 with 20 degree mounts and no new shell, with the new shell (but no supercharges) the range was increased to 26,650 which could be increased to 29,930 with supercharges on the old mounts. Quite impressive but unfortunately it seems that this new ammunition even though available in 1941 seems to be rarely used on any of the ships, whether this is because it was scarce, used without the supercharge, or because it was mistrusted because it was new remains unclear. But if you want to give your ships a little more punch then please be my guest.
The way I see it the 15" variations break down as follows:
20 degree mounts with improved shell and supercharge: 5-25-30
30 degree mounts with improved shell and supercharge: 6-30-40

Thanks Paul,
I will search on e-bay for a rule set. Bulldog