Doug-

OK, I've broken down and picked up GF2 for comparison with GF1.  I'd been wanting to do this anyway, and this just gave me some incentive.

I think GF1's air rules could reasonably be grafted onto GF2.  Obviously, all the air-to-air combat could be handled within the GF1 rules. 

For WWI, at least, I think GF2 AA ratings could be used with the GF1 rules, if you didn't want to recalculate the AA ratings with the GF1 formula.  The formulas are pretty close for the smaller AA guns, and only differ significantly for the larger AA guns that you'd find in WWII.

Because the GF2 hull boxes are calculated differently than the GF1 hull boxes, the damage done by GF1 bombs would need to be adjusted for attacks on GF2 ships.  I've done some calculations, and I think an easy approximate conversion would be

(GF2 damage) = 1.5x(GF1 damage)

Round fractions up.

The deck armor rating in GF2 is intended for use with plunging fire, and so isn't really suitable for use against bombs.  You could calculate a deck armor for defense against bombs using the GF1 conversion rules if you have access to a Conway's, etc.  (Let's call that armor value "A", for Aerial defense.)  I think this formula would get you "A" from the GF2 belt (B) and deck (D) values:

A = 2D - B - 1

I don't think you'd want to try to do anything really air-intensive with this, but for the occasional Zeppelin or or H.12 that's out scouting and gets closer to the enemy than anticipated, the GF1 pdf would get you air rules for $9.98.

I suppose I should emphasize that I haven't actually tried any of this.

-Eric

Edit:  OK--I feel stupid.  If you get GF1, just use the GF1 deck values instead of the GF2 deck values when rolling for bomb penetration.  No conversion needed.

Doug-

I assume you're now asking about rules, and not "Miniatures choices".

I'll also assume you're not wanting to play a "sub hunt" game, with armed trawlers and sub chasers, etc.  Grand Fleets (unless the 2nd ed is wildly different from the 1st ed)  probably wouldn't be my rules of choice for that.

So, given that subs in WWI were pretty much incapable of operating tactically with a fleet, I'd restrict them to strategic effects in a campaign.  Think "mobile minefield".  Give them some chance of finding the enemy fleet (perhaps based on location, entering the same hex, crossing a patrolled hexside, for example, if you are using a map for strategic movement).  Day vs. night should probably make a difference.  Give the escorts some chance of detecting the sub and then some chance of sinking it, perhaps based on how many escorts there are.  Make the sub (if it has survived) choose a target with at least some randomness.  At that point, you could probably use the GF torpedo rules to resolve the attack, perhaps making a sub that was detected attack from a greater range. 

If you're running a campaign, I don't think it would be too hard to come up with some reasonable probabilities.  If the campaign is a group effort, I don't think it would be too hard to come up with probabilities everyone would accept.  If there's no campaign, I'd leave subs out of it.

-Eric

Now I understand why you were asking.

I think the "empty dusty bunker" issue would not arise in the normal course of events.  I think the plan was to use the "protective" coal last.  Another plan was never to be steaming around on the last shovelful of coal, so unless something very unusual had happened, I think those bunkers would be full.

I suggested that the protection afforded by the coal bunkers was theoretical, rather than practical, because I know of no action in which a protected cruiser actually was protected by shells bursting relatively harmlessly in the bunkers.  If anyone else knows of such an action, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

I envy you having a campaign.  If your friend is insistent that some gesture be made taking protected cruisers' bunkers into account, how about this (which is totally off the top of my head, so I don't know if it works, and even if it does work, I don't know if it's worth the effort):

"Protected cruisers that have steamed less than 3/4 of their maximum range ignore critical hits caused by shells whose penetration die rolls were exactly the minimum needed for penetration."

The "3/4" is just a guess, but it probably should be something greater than 1/2.  2/3 is also reasonable.

If you're afraid this give protected cruisers an advantage without any corresponding disadvantage, how about this (accounting for those emptying bunkers and the potential for coal dust explosions):

"Hull damage caused by critical hits on protected cruisers that have steamed more than 3/4 of their maximum range is doubled."

I think it plays pretty well solo, but then I'm pretty good at deciding what one side would do if it didn't know what the other was doing.  There aren't any solo rules (in the first edition, anyway), so if you need solo rules because you can't ignore what you shouldn't know and just play both sides, I suppose they wouldn't work very well.

I guess that isn't much of an answer.

I'm not sure there is a "typical" scenario.  I've played from four (Denmark Straight and River Plate) to seventeen (Gotland Island) ships solo.  Gotland Island took a while, but only because I played it out to the bitter end--it was decided pretty quickly.

I don't know what set Soulmage was looking at, but Seekrieg 4 has a rule for crews spontaneously abandoning ship (table U2).  I haven't seen Seekrieg 5, so I don't know if it was carried over to the new version.

For individual ships, this makes more sense to me than having one captain break formation to take his ship off somewhere and compose himself.

For the entire fleet, it seems that "morale" should be written into the victory conditions of the scenario, or perhaps are the ultimate meaning of the victory conditions.  Why, for example, does side A win by sinking X number of ships?  Because that's when side B has had enough.

The squadron level is more interesting, and I don't have any suggestions off the top of my head.

I just followed the pattern, and added 0.6 AA points for each one.  I don't worry about correlating damage to these larger guns with losses to AA points.

I don't play much WWII, but the US should probably get some kind of bonus or positive modifier for the 5" guns when the VT fuses become available.

The issue with Grand Fleets and immune zones is that Grand Fleets is just a bit too abstract for them to make sense.  I've only looked at one WWII capital ship engagement (Denmark Strait), and ships either have no zone in which they are immune from the enemy's guns, or the immune zone is the entire middle range.  This magnifies small differences between ships. 

(Please note that I do not consider the abstraction in Grand Fleets to be a  "problem".  A game design needs a particular level of abstraction, and I think Grand Fleets has a very nice one.)

Hmmm ... perhaps the un-named chart that is used for hitting with modifiers of -3 or worse (I think of it as the "lucky hits chart") could also be used somehow as a "lucky penetration" chart.

This sort of leaves open the question of why the guns would be designed like that.  I mean, why not back off on the muzzle velocity, reduce wear on the barrels, fire to the horizon at an elevation of 45 degrees or so, and punch through the thin deck armor?  And in case anyone is as puzzled about this as I used to be, I'll be tacky enough to answer my own question:

I guess I bought one of the other four copies.

My preference would be for historical and reasonable WWI "what if" scenarios.  Historical scenarios should be fairly easy to come up with, to the point where we shouldn't really need a supplement for them.  I think you'd be providing a real service if you combed the history books looking for things that almost happend, though.

I suppose what consitutes "reasonable" is subjective.   "What if the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet managed to find each other on August 19, 1916?" works for me.  "What if Argentina built a fleet of Queen Elizabeths and attacked the United States?" doesn't.

I'm less interested in WWII scenarios, but I don't actually have anthing against them.

-Eric

PS  Hey, do I need to start following the Yahoo! Group again?  I thought all the action was here.

I use that scale.  I use the tabletop conversion, but I double the gunnery ranges, entirely for aesthetic reasons.  After all, if aesthetics didn't matter, you might as well use cardboard counters.

-Eric

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make--that you didn't pick the light gun ranges of 1/2/3 just because it looks nice.  I guess it didn't come through very well.  Sorry.

Could be.

-Eric

Yes.  "Just following the leader" only works as long as you know you are just supposed to follow the leader.  But there needs to be a way to know when you aren't supposed to follow any more and, for example, turn together.

-Eric