Old Dominion GameWorks → General Quarters 3rd Ed.

Forum → Surface Operations - Part 1

1.7.7 C*S*T Equivalent Damage Rolls

Started by vichussar , Oct 12 2011 07:00 AM

Posted 12 October 2011 - 07:00 AM

vichussar

Hi all, After playing "Fletcher Pratt" and dabbeling in GQ1/2 15+ yrs ago, I have started playing WW2 naval
again with a few fellow gamers. We have played a number of games of "Denmark Strait" and "River Plate" to
compare the various rule sets available:- GQ3, GHQ Micronauts, Naval Thunder & Victory at Sea. VaS has
been dropped in favour of Naval Thunder which is just behind Micronauts and GQ3 which are even on
surface combat and it looks like being decided on Air & Sub rules etc.

but back to my queries....

We have been using the C*S*T rule but believe it should include the FP(Float Plane)entry as the plane and/or
catapult would be vulnerable to any size hits.

I have read that often the floatplanes were often left behind or drained of fuel to prevent fires especially
later in the war. How do you decide if the planes are embarked or not for a scenario?

Currently the "Bridge" is still included inside the heavy outline indicating a penetrating hit is required to
damage it. Is there a way of indicating on the charts that it is not armoured such as a small note under the
Crit Hit Table as opposed to the "CT" which is armoured.

Finally from reading the threads and rules it seems that the owner of the target rolls for damage and only
has to inform the attacker of fires, explosions, being DIW or Sunk. We been telling the opponent all damage
and this has lead to some tense recent games in which I was knocking out my opponent's turrets (mission
kills), he was knocking off my hull boxes and it became a race to see who could survive long enough.

regards,
John Mc

Posted 12 October 2011 - 04:15 PM

vichussar

Hi all,

What has happened to the "Initial Salvo Half D12's" adjustment on the Gunnery Charts? It appeared in
Amendment 1 and disappeared in Amendment 2.

John Mc

Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:27 PM

Blue Leader

'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hi all,

What has happened to the "Initial Salvo Half D12's" adjustment on the Gunnery Charts? It appeared in Amendment 1 and
disappeared in Amendment 2.

John Mc

John,

Deleting it was probably an error so add it back if you want.

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:20 PM

Aman
 RE: Floatplanes, I'd just assume they aren't around. However a balanced approach might be that if a player
wants to use floatplanes for any flares or other advantages, one assumes that there's a certain amount of
flammables - play it as per the charts. If a player doesn't use the planes at all, then assume they've been sent
off somewhere safe - cancel the "fire" caused by a hit on the FP box of the damage chart.

I think secret damage is fun for some people. Most commanders had no idea what happened unless the
target blew up and sank. But for most gamers, they like to know a lot more than the real captains would. I'd
play this as a "vote'n see" thing.

As clarified elsewhere in the forum, ALL Bridge hit criticals penetrations as the Bridge is considered
unarmored. The CT is armored and needs a penetrating hit or no effect.

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:26 AM

Cpt M

'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 1:00 PM, said:

Hi all, After playing "Fletcher Pratt" and dabbeling in GQ1/2 15+ yrs ago, I have started playing WW2 naval again with a
few fellow gamers. We have played a number of games of "Denmark Strait" and "River Plate" to compare the various rule
sets available:- GQ3, GHQ Micronauts, Naval Thunder & Victory at Sea. VaS has been dropped in favour of Naval Thunder
which is just behind Micronauts and GQ3 which are even on surface combat and it looks like being decided on Air & Sub
rules etc.

but back to my queries....

We have been using the C*S*T rule but believe it should include the FP(Float Plane)entry as the plane and/or catapult
would be vulnerable to any size hits.

Probably a reasonable addition for those ships with floatplanes (or their facilities) embarked.

'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 1:00 PM, said:

I have read that often the floatplanes were often left behind or drained of fuel to prevent fires especially later in the war.
How do you decide if the planes are embarked or not for a scenario?

Whether a ship has their floatplanes embarked or have flown them off would need to be determined before
the scenario. Keep in mind, this is going to depend on the larger operational situation. Cruisers especially,
used their floatplanes extensively for anti-sub patrol and scouting. So a meeting mid ocean would probably
have both forces holding onto their floatplanes while in other situations (USN cruisers operating around the
Solomons) might well fly them off. Also, floatplane hits are considered to include the whole of the facilities,
not just the planes themselves. That would include the hangers, stowed aircraft and any supplies to support
the planes. And even drained of fuel, aircraft were awfully flammable.

'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 1:00 PM, said:

Currently the "Bridge" is still included inside the heavy outline indicating a penetrating hit is required to damage it. Is
there a way of indicating on the charts that it is not armoured such as a small note under the Crit Hit Table as opposed to
the "CT" which is armoured.

By definition, a Bridge is considered unarmored while a Conning Tower is armored. The ship logs will
indicate whether the 'command center' (for want of a better word) is an armored Conning Tower or
unarmored Bridge. In a strict interpretation, you could assume that any hit to be effective must penetrate
either the thick Conning Tower armor or the non-exisitant Bridge armor (and everything penetrates that!),
whichever the ship has. As to including a clarification, I'm afraid that might not be possible as the charts are
very near their limit when comes to squeezing in additional notations.

'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 1:00 PM, said:

Finally from reading the threads and rules it seems that the owner of the target rolls for damage and only has to inform
the attacker of fires, explosions, being DIW or Sunk. We been telling the opponent all damage and this has lead to some
tense recent games in which I was knocking out my opponent's turrets (mission kills), he was knocking off my hull boxes
and it became a race to see who could survive long enough.

While it is strictly correct that you should only reveal those damages that the other side could logically see,
how you play this part of the game is entirely up to you and your crew. And if its more fun your way, then,
by golly, do it! BTW, my group does the same thing!

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:34 AM

Cpt M
 'vichussar', on 12 Oct 2011 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hi all,

What has happened to the "Initial Salvo Half D12's" adjustment on the Gunnery Charts? It appeared in Amendment 1 and
disappeared in Amendment 2.

John Mc

It got dropped after further testing and discussion within the design group. IIRC, it was felt it was a bit too
dranconial in its effect.

Posted 21 October 2011 - 03:36 PM

Dave Franklin

Regarding the "Initial Salvo Half D12's" adjustment on the Gunnery Charts being dropped because it was felt
it was a bit too dranconial in its effect: I could not disagree more. Without that modifier, you have players
switching who they are firing at all willie-nillie every turn.

Posted 22 October 2011 - 12:29 AM

Cpt M

'Dave Franklin', on 21 Oct 2011 - 9:36 PM, said:

Regarding the "Initial Salvo Half D12's" adjustment on the Gunnery Charts being dropped because it was felt it was a bit
too dranconial in its effect: I could not disagree more. Without that modifier, you have players switching who they are
firing at all willie-nillie every turn.

Given the level of development of fire control systems and doctrine by WWII, the impact on fire from
changing targets was not significant. It was fairly standard (if not expected in some fleets) for a ship to be
able to register on target within 2 salvoes (and if using the ladder method, 1 salvo). Given the length of a
game turn, it was felt the penalty was too severe.

Posted 22 October 2011 - 07:26 PM

Dave Franklin

'Coastal', on 22 Oct 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

Given the level of development of fire control systems and doctrine by WWII, the impact on fire from changing tthn argets
was not significant. It was fairly standard (if not expected in some fleets) for a ship to be able to register on target within 2
salvoes (and if using the ladder method, 1 salvo). Given the length of a game turn, it was felt the penalty was too severe.

Like I said, I disagree. Look at the examples of daytime surface combat that occurred at any kind of range.
They would shoot and shoot and only hit infrequently. So I don't think I buy their fire control was so good.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 03:36 PM

Cpt M

'Dave Franklin', on 23 Oct 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

Like I said, I disagree. Look at the examples of daytime surface combat that occurred at any kind of range. They would
shoot and shoot and only hit infrequently. So I don't think I buy their fire control was so good.

We're not talking about overall hits here, we're talking about the impact of switching targets. Keep in mind,
even at the very best, long range hit probabilities were never that high (often in the low single digits).
Doctrine and technology had reduced the impact of switching targets; improving overall hit probabilities
would have to wait many decades for new technologies.

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:19 PM

Aman

DF, I think you could put something like that in for poor visibility, maybe night, fog, where getting that first
range in might be tougher (altho the rules take most of this into account in other ways), but Coastal is right
in that _in game terms_ the modifier is too severe. One might say that the gunnery team was expected to
ALWAYS be producing new firing solutions for what could be the rapidly changing orientation of the two
ships. And with a three-minute turn, you've a 5" battery firing up to 45 times and heavier 8" batteries firing
about 12 times. I like to think that _within the turn_ they've gotten themselves ranged in after the first few
salvoes.
 Of greater concern might be getting off the first volley. There were certainly times when ships caught others
unprepared (usually through misidentification) and fired on them while they had their gun in the holster, so
to speak. For that situation, I was thinking of using some sort of skill check where if one side passed and the
other failed, the winner got their initial salvoes off first. But I was only going to use it in smaller actions
between 3-6 ships per side.

Posted 25 October 2011 - 10:27 PM

Dave Franklin

'Coastal', on 23 Oct 2011 - 9:36 PM, said:

We're not talking about overall hits here, we're talking about the impact of switching targets. Keep in mind, even at the
very best, long range hit probabilities were never that high (often in the low single digits). Doctrine and technology had
reduced the impact of switching targets; improving overall hit probabilities would have to wait many decades for new
technologies.

The two topics are linked IMO, because as you state, the overall hit probablities at long range were very low -
and also IMO it is too easy to hit at long ranges in GQ3. In GQ3, you can be shooting at around 24000 yards in
daytime with a hit number of "1", but because you've got 8 or 9 guns, you're throwing 4 D12s, which gives
you a 33% chance for a hit per turn. Way too high if you ask me, to be realistic. So anything to reduce the
chance of a hit, like halving the number of dice you throw the first turn you switch targets, seems like a good
idea. The challenge is to create a method to play the game that facilitates the players remembering the
modifier. We have target markers made from white drywall screw anchors on labled washers (that look at
least a little like splashes). It makes it easy to see if you have to take the multiple batteries modifier. Our
further process is to put the markers in front of the ship the first turn, and thus halve the number of D12s,
and move it behind the ship on subsequent turns to indicate getting the full number of D12s.

Posted 25 October 2011 - 10:37 PM

Dave Franklin

'Aman', on 24 Oct 2011 - 02:19 AM, said:

DF, I think you could put something like that in for poor visibility, maybe night, fog, where getting that first range in might
be tougher (altho the rules take most of this into account in other ways), but Coastal is right in that _in game terms_ the
modifier is too severe. One might say that the gunnery team was expected to ALWAYS be producing new firing solutions
for what could be the rapidly changing orientation of the two ships. And with a three-minute turn, you've a 5" battery
firing up to 45 times and heavier 8" batteries firing about 12 times. I like to think that _within the turn_ they've gotten
themselves ranged in after the first few salvoes.

Of greater concern might be getting off the first volley. There were certainly times when ships caught others unprepared
(usually through misidentification) and fired on them while they had their gun in the holster, so to speak. For that
situation, I was thinking of using some sort of skill check where if one side passed and the other failed, the winner got
their initial salvoes off first. But I was only going to use it in smaller actions between 3-6 ships per side.

Well first, daytime turns in GQ are 6 minutes, not 3.

Ranged in after a few salvos? Maybe. But actually getting hits? Then those long-ranged daytime battles like
Komandorski Islands, Matapan, etc. must have been over in a few minutes, since the visibility was good. Ah,
but they weren't over in a few minutes, because they hit so infrequently at long range.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:22 PM

Cpt M

'Dave Franklin', on 26 Oct 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

Well first, daytime turns in GQ are 6 minutes, not 3.

Ranged in after a few salvos? Maybe. But actually getting hits? Then those long-ranged daytime battles like Komandorski
Islands, Matapan, etc. must have been over in a few minutes, since the visibility was good. Ah, but they weren't over in a
few minutes, because they hit so infrequently at long range.

Actually, doctrine for many navys was to range in with ONE salvo using the ladder method. A single salvo of
shells with a predetermined spacing would be fire on the target. With a known spacing of the fall of shot,
adjustments were able to be made rapidly. With better optics and sophisticated fire control computers,
getting and keeping a fire solution was much improved and the impact of shifting fire was much reduced.

And finally, while the turn is 6 minutes, the actual amount of 'action' within the turn is only 3 minutes (this
has been true since GQ1/2).
 Aman Posted 28 October 2011 - 12:37 AM

eh, I dunno Dave. We've now played the battle of Savo Island twice, a 20+ ship battle from first detection
through to the IJN withdrawing. despite the fact that it was a night action and therefore the fighting was at
very close quarters, we've found that the combination of various "hits", "Equivilent Hits", and Damage Rolls
can result in little to no "damage" depending on the roll. I think I've shot off more searchlights and torpedo
tubes than anything else. A good solid torpedo hit seems to be the only way to seriously damage / sink a ship,
far as I can tell. Granted, we're using Cruisers as our main battle lines, but with all the DD around, we've
only had 3 sunk (out of 11 total, and they fought close and hard).

In game design terms, how many "hits" are represented by at game "hit"? How much damage should one
expect when one is "hit"?

So far the only battle I've read about that is surface and in my period was Leyte Gulf. The IJN were
registering splashes near the ships pretty much from the get-go, more at 30K yards. As the battle progressed,
they sank a few ships.

How would this play out in GQ3? The only way to properly address your concern that there are too many
"hits" would be to figure out the historical battle, and then play it out or re-enact it on the table. Note that I'm
NOT disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that 3 min of "action" in 6 min of "turn" should produce some sort
of event / result. What should that be at long range? Note that there is a 1/2 band on the Gunnery chart, that
halves the number of dice. You can always tinker around in that direction, but I think that visibility is the
main issue, along with "splashes".

Back to Surface Operations - Part 1

Old Dominion GameWorks → General Quarters 3rd Ed. Forum → Surface Operations - Part 1