Skip to forum content
mj12games.com/forum
Majestic Twelve Games Discussion Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
Search options (Page 2 of 2)
As long as the movement and combat ranges are consistent with themselves and each other
Yes, and as I've discovered, a perfectly reasonable game can be played when the ranges aren't even consistent with each other (which effectively sets a different length of time per game turn).
either for hexes or inches (or cm, for those VAT-payers)
Or both. The 1:18,000 ground scale and 6 minute turn lets me use 1 inch= 500 yards for range, and 1 cm = 1 knot for movement. I have tape measures marked with both inches and centimeters, and it works pretty easily.
(jimbeau - that was much funnier than what I meant to say. Thanks!)
-Eric
I trust no one minds if I reply to myself 
I just want to point out that there's nothing sacred about the conversion formula in the rules (which works out to 1:36,000, if I remember correctly). I've been using 1 hex = 4 inches for range, and 1 hex = 2 inches for movement, which is 1:18,000 ground scale with 6 minute turns. It keeps my 1/2400 ships from either zooming around the table, or getting together in a weird little bunch for combat.
One can imagine all sorts of terrible things that might happen if one messes with the time scale of a game, but they don't seem to have actually happened. (My only concession to the altered time scale is a house rule for multi-turn topedo movement.)
-Eric
(Steam) naval games rarely, it seems, have the ground scale match the miniature scale. I've been playing Grand Fleets with 1/2400 scale miniatures and a 1:18,000 ground scale on a 6x8 foot table. Even if I went to 1/6000 miniatures, I'd need a 18x24 foot table to make the scales match. I sure don't have a table that big. I don't think I even have a floor that big.
So I agree with Kevin, too. Don't worry about it. No one else does.
-Eric
Very nice! I particularly like your decks. If you don't mind, what color(s) did you use?
For example the on the SMs Seydlitz her 11" guns cannot perform plunging fire, but her 6" and light guns can.
Is it elevation that determines this cabaility? In which case I would be surpised the casemate guns could to this over the turret guns.
While one can easily imagine the heavy guns being mounted to enable high-angle fire, the problem in WWI was fire control. If one isn't all that sure about the range, there is a much better chance of hitting a target with a low-trajectory high-velocity shell, than by trying drop a high-trajectory shell down onto it.
Of course, as rangefinding got better, it started to make sense to give heavy guns a greater elevation.
Of course, having dismissed the possibility of finding evidence of cross-deck fire at Falklands, I then stumble upon http://www.steelnavy.com/ISWInvincible.htm, which says:
In spite of the design in which cross deck fire from the amidships turret on the unengaged side, the 12-inch guns of P turret did fire across the ship at von Spee's cruisers. Of course every time P turret fired, the marine crew of Q turret were dazed by the concussion.
I'm not sure where they got that, or if it should be considered "proof", but most of their information is referenced to Battlecruiser Invincible, The History of the First Battlecruiser 1909-16, by V.E. Tarrant, 1986.
Good idea. I'd never thought about looking for evidence that cross-deck firing was actually done. I'm trying to think when there would have been an opportunity. Falklands and Dogger Bank were stern chases.
I guess I'd look at Jutland, particularly the German battlecruisers and the British dreadnoughts Colossus and Hercules. Did the British 12" battlecruisers ever get positioned to fire broadsides?
The field of fire on the off-side was severely restricted. I think it was only 100 degrees for Invincible, a little more for the others. So you'd really need to be about broadside-on to get to use it. The centerline turrets would be easier to bring in to action, I think, as well as being better protected.
I would guess (and it is just a guess) that any ship that could fire across the deck would do it in combat. While you may not want to stress the deck or damage the superstructure just to give your gunners practice in firing that way, I can't imagine a commander leaving 20-25% of his guns out of action just to avoid needing deck repairs later.
Note that axial fire caused the same sort of problems (e.g., Dreadnought didn't generally fire 6 guns directly ahead or astern). So if you are really going to reduce Moltke's ACDE guns to ACE, you might have to consider reducing them to just plain C. But I wouldn't do either one.
The WWII scenarios I've played (solo) have all gone very well. And I suppose if WWII scenarios were all I played, that would be the end of it. In comparison with WWI, though, I find myself wondering about the advances in fire control during the intervening 20+ years. I've considered a simple "radar" house rule for WWII scenarios, but haven't actually played with one.
(As far as that goes, if one thinks of the Grand Fleets hit probabilities as representing standard WWI director-controlled firing, then one might feel a need to penalize ships that do not have directors. But figuring out which ships had directors fitted, and when, sounds like a giant mess I wouldn't want to get in to.)
-Eric
Posts found: 26 to 34 of 34