101

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Looking at Spitting Fire.....

And looking at Spitting Fire has me looking at Grand Fleets (which I was doing a while ago anyways, until things got derailed).

And I gotta wonder, wouldn't it be worthwhile for MJ12games to offer fold-up ship counters for WWI and WW2 wet navy hulls, just as it's done for Iron Stars?

Kevin and I had a discussion about this once over the phone. 

I think you'd be making some $$ off folks who want to dive into a naval game, but want something maybe a little more immersive than top down counters -- but don't want to spend weeks painting before they actually get to play.  Honestly, I have painted minis out the wazoo...but I seem to suffer from an affliction in that by the time I'm done painting for a particular game, I'm kind of like "nah, not so much."  And I move on to something else.

Just offering a suggestion. Kevin's got to have an expansion comin out sooner or later.  It'd be a nice test run. smile

102

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

well, I gots it figured out except for ONE ship that has a weapon with an arc described as "1"

So the only weapon on a particular ship fires out of the A or B arc, and that's it?

Jeesh. :shock:

Anyway =
126 simply means the weapon fires in a front 180 arc -- or as close as you can get to that in Starmada.

345 is a rear 180 arc


Matt

103

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

I figure each numeral has to relate to a firing arc.  I just wanna know which.

IE
A= 1 or 2?

B = what?

yada yada yada

I bet if I could find a B5 War ship sheet I could tell which real quick

104

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

Some of the firing arcs are numerical instead of listing letters (IE firing arc 156, etc....)

Is this is bug in the excel sheets?

105

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

Two days after I asked to see them, he's sent a TON of EA, Narn, Centauri and Minbari ship stats for Starmada X.....and they look fantastic!!

I have Mongoose's ruleset and counters, and it works fine, but I've got a massive hex mat just sitting here as well, begging to try this setting using MJ12's ruleset.   Just looking at the spreadsheets he used to convert the weapons and tech systems blows my mind.

So nicely done!  I appreciate it, and so will the local guys at the hobby shop.

AAR to come...

106

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Either way, I wasn't trying to be obnoxious.  I've just had fun brainstorming the deaths of entire civilizations big_smile

107

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

The Brits churned out battleships and BCs during WWI.

The Germans produced the Konigs during WWI, didn't they?

I guess I'm confused.  The British fleet grew...The Germans grew during the early stages of the war.  The Japanese fleet grew, didn't it?

108

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Don't see how losses outpaced production.

Certainly didn't happen with the Brits.  And the Germans only lost a couple dreadnoughts, period.

I guess you could take it into the SFO universe, but as I'm just the fluff guy (or one of them, Todd being the other  big_smile ), then I gots nowhere to go. To me, the setting is everything.

109

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

I dunno.  I think it'd be a shame to break away from the timeline before WWI is even started.  You wouldn't even have to introduce that many new widgits to take players into 1914-1916.

Meaning....You ever thought about introducing mass scale rules for the IS universe?  I think it'd be neat to have an ether version of Jutland taking place.  Granted, there wouldn't be as many ether ships as their wet navy counterparts.  By why not have rules where players could field a dozen plus capital ships (not just DDs) at a time?  I think the current rules might have too many dice rolling to make big battles practical, but it would be a neat addition -- ya gotta figure ship production efforts would amp up in the midst of a full-scale war.

110

(2 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Yeah...i'm just thinking improvements could be down the road.  The early FACs were also dying in droves during launch and the pilots were losing digits to frostbite "ala the whole 'Three Fingered Tom' name they were getting slapped with.

Early FACs ....1907.  By 1914 on, we could see something, maybe.

Point taken about the dive bombers.  Just trying to find ways to vary the weaponry.

111

(2 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

I was thinking that in theory, dreadnought battleships carried floatplanes heading into the 1930s and 40s because they hoped aerial spotting could help land their salvos on target.

In reality, they weren't used much at all (I found a few articles on the subject).  But would this kind of tactic add another rules option for IS.

Could we have FAC "spotters"  providing a to-hit bonus for ships using their primaries?  IE, if they stay within a certain distance of an enemy ship, they offer a +1 advantage? 

The main FX problem, of course, is you can't see splashes in the ether.  Maybe crude directional equipment might be able to let them track shell trajectory or something like that. Fisher originally wanted FACs to act in a recon role, after all.

I was also thinking about bombing runs on ships.  We have torp rules, and orbital bombardment.  But would there be a reason for FAC dive bombers?

112

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Oooohhh, now you've done it.

Now the itch is coming back.

The Austrians........those are my fellas.  I get to see ships I wrote up as actual minis!?!?!?!

NICE  big_smile

113

(40 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

bump because I don't want to have the 6666th article.

jeesh

114

(40 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Checking in again.

No big deal.  Just curious.  Haven't picked IS up (or heard any back scenes rumblings) in months.

Later
Matt

115

(40 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Is this still happening?  Looked back and the thread started a few months ago.

116

(0 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Got notes from that playtest session if you wanna know how things happened the way they did.


I also was hopin' someone could throw out data for UK and ITA fighters and torpedo planes that would have been used in 1940-42 (besides the Swordfish).  Been writing up a batch of stuff for the local guys here.  Over the past few days we've refought two parts of the Battle of Calabria and a tiny cruiser/destroyer action near Cape Spada  smile

The Regia Marina has done better so far than in real life -- but not by that big of a margin.

117

(0 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

OK, this weekend we're going to have more Pacific theater bloodshed in central Ohio big_smile

We have some historical WW2 scenarios to try out, and a last hypothetical set in 1929.

With the US tying up Japan's fleet, Great Britain and Australia are taking action to solidify their position(s) in the Far East.

Fleet =
HMS Rodney, HMS Nelson

HMS London, HMS Sussex, HMAS Australia, HMAS Canberra

HMS Emerald, HMS Encounter, HMAS Abelaide

destroyers including the Admiralty S class and the two modern types -- HMS Amazon and HMS Ambuscade.


We'll see what the Japanese can throw against them, although early indicators are Nagato and Mutsu, a pair of Aobas, Yubari, an unnamed CL and some modern destroyers.

AAR on Monday smile

118

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Kevin's gonna help me plug some holes -- with the hope that we can get this thing relatively polished  smile

So far, the basic approach remains that YOU plot your moves for the turn, and then reposition your ships, leaving markers to denote where you began the movement phase.

You then roll for the AI fleet's reaction to your original position (as movement orders are supposed to be simultaneous).

Factors include the opposing squadrons' numeric strength, how their guns compare to each other, damage levels, the threat of the AI's "T" being crossed, and the need to maintain C&C.

It's kept the AI fleet from doing anything stupid over the handful of playtest sessions so far.  And the best part is I haven't had to step in and say "no no, don't do that."   I think we even have the basic framework for deciding how to handle torpedoes launched by the AI. 

I think it's a neat tool for rainy days when opponents are scarce.  I just wanted to run it by my most exacting critic to date (that being Kevin  lol )

119

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Second thing for the day.

I get to play with actual people on the weekends, but I'm trying to develop a tool to help test scenarios on those nights when I have nothing to do (happening more now that the woman is BACK overseas).

I have a two page set of tables and guidelines for GF solo play.  I've tested it twice with RTJ ships and once with WWI ships.  And so far, it's worked well without me having to make any decisions or help the "AI" side.  But I'd like input. 

Basically, it works by the player conducting his move for the turn, marking where his ships WERE at the start of the movement phase by placing tokens or dice in the appropriate hexes.

The AI controlled side then reacts dependent on ship class, gun range, damage levels, etc.  I even have some tables to use during the End Phase to see if it has correctly guessed torpedo arcs.

Anyway, if anyone is feeling the itch to see it, let me know.

120

(1 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Some scenarios shot over by Herr Kevin have re-sparked interest in naval wargaming here in central Ohio.  A handful of sci-fi geeks have pushed IS aside for a while, at least, to try their hands at Grand Fleets (thanks mainly to the fact that we now have a decent playing surface in the form of a 48X36  1" hex playing mat).

We tried our hands at some Guadalcanal scenarios, and folks had a blast  big_smile

I also got to test reactions on one hypothetical battle set in 1929 between the U.S. and Japan.  One player took over the US force in the form of Salt Lake City, Cincinnati and Marblehead -- paired with a flotilla of Wickes class destroyers.  Had to fix a quick typo with a Japanese damage track, but then we were off.

Squaring off for the IJN were the Nachi, Haguro and Furutaka --along with the CL Kinu leading a flotilla of Kamikaze class destroyers.

The Americans were mostly outgunned -- their two CLs being no dire threat to the enemy CAs.  But the USA had support in the form of air cover.  A random roll at the beginning of the battle determined that seven torpedo planes launched from the Lexington would be available, arriving in pairs during each Turn's End Phase.

The Americans got some LUCKY rolls at the very beginning, with the Salt Lake City bruising Haguro at 11 nm (need a "10" then a "3" to hit, and managed to drive one 8" shell through her belt).  And some sloppy maneuvering by the IJN saw their cruiser division develop some gaps in the line during the early turns.  But eventually, Japanese firepower began to win out.  Moving along at high speed, both sides were pressed to land hits, and the Japanese had a range advantage over the two Omaha class CLs, which they maintained for the next few turns. The Kinu and her flotilla took some licks from the American destroyers, but were largely winning that fight as the two screening forces duked it out.

By the 4th turn, Marblehead had been forced to drop out of the line due to gun damage caused by Furutaka.  And my Wickes couldn't stop the Japanese destroyer flotilla from scooting in and plunking a pair of 24" torpedoes through her hull -- sending her to the bottom.

Revenge came with the torpedo planes, which had been massing to form a concentrated attack.  AAR ratings for ships in this era are pretty low, and if they were able to isolate one of the Japanese cruisers, the flyboys were going to do some damage.  The first four planes went in at once on  Haguro, which managed to evade all four 18" Mk.7s -- but the subsequent trio of planes put one in her hull, and the critical that automatically comes with a torp hit caused flooding that her crew wasn't able to contain until it inflicted another point of damage.  Coupled with salvos from Salt Lake City's 8" guns, Haguro went down.

This caused the Japanese division to be disrupted, and my remaining two cruisers, while dinged a bit, were able to cross the "t" and do some damage to Nachi, which was second in the line.  A crit here saw a fire break out, and when the scenario hit its time limit, neither side was looking really hot. I had arguably done more damage to the cruisers, but my Wickes had really taken a beating. And I had still lost Marblehead.

Fun time.  Air power was a presence, but it didn't dominate the game by any stretch.  We got to use some of the meatier rules in the game (air phase, flotillas, critical hits).  And the scenario size was right, as it was a relatively quick game. I just had no idea how to award VPs, as from what I've seen Kevin usually comes up with that after playtesting.

121

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

big_smile thanks for that

T4M-1 had a range of 665 miles if that helps with fuel

F2B-1 had 317 miles.

Matt

122

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Can we get them?  The rules tells you how to convert ships, but not planes, and there are some 1920s-1930 aircraft I want to get in some scenarios:
Martin T4M-1 torpedo plane
Boeing F2B-1 fighter

C'mon now.  Yer creative juices are flowing, so where's the IS piece?

124

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

"Great Pacific War" by Bywater.

125

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

I used to be a fan of the hypothetical scenario until lately.  Now, not so much.  And I guess I'd like to see dedicated books dealing with one conflict at a time (IE -- WW2 Pacific or WW2 Med).

If the idea isn't feasible, then it isn't feasible.  But I still think it would be neat  to see a campaign system added to Grand Fleets, along the lines of VBAM.  You already have the source material to create the ship stats for the hulls used by the US and Japan from 1941 to 1945.  And all the information regarding what ship was available where/when is out there. 

You asked, and that's just what I would like to see.  An expansion that gave the players a way to fight a strategic campaign (you could hit repair, supply and large scale air ops using the strategic rules), while resolving the tactical/surface battles with Grand Fleets.