• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Topic: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

My only real concern with the rule set is that armor seems to be penetrated way too much. 

Case in point -- you have a Weymouth class CL packing 6" guns with Piercing +1, versus an Austrian CL with Armor 1 and 3.9" guns with no Piercing attribute.

Both ships have a base to hit of 4+, right?  Which means in the absence of Evasive Action or environmental conditions (and I think the rules need some environmental conditions added to reflect wet navy combat), means each mount that can target the other ship at Medium range is going to it 50% of the time.  Then with Piercing +1, the Weymouth is going to Penetrate the Austrian CL with every hit unless it rolls a 2.  Likewise, the Austrian ship is going to penetrate the Weymouth with every 3.9" hit unless it rolls a 2.  And since each ship has five guns it can bring to bear through the C arc.....and two or three hull boxes each, ships are gonna drop like flies.  I mean, the Weymouth's 6" guns are gonna tear through a lot of armored cruisers, and that wasn't the case historically.  We played two scenarios.  A meeting engagement between British and Austrian ships, then Brits against the Germans, and it just seemed bloody too soon.

I think Starmada can be used to reflect wet navy battles just as easily,if not more so, than what was done with ACTA and VAS.  But it just seems combat here will resolve itself with horrifying speed unless some setting specific modifiers are put in place.

Just my two cents.  I'm hoping folks take this and run with it, as if I have a choice, I'd rather buy naval rules and supplements from MJ12games than A&A (although I do like their stuff) or Mongoose or Clash of Arms. 

Matt

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

themattcurtis wrote:

Case in point -- you have a Weymouth class CL packing 6" guns with Piercing +1, versus an Austrian CL with Armor 1 and 3.9" guns with no Piercing attribute.

Weymouth's eight 6" guns (of which five can attack a single target) will score 2.5 hits in a given turn. Against the CL's armor 1, they will score
2.08 hits (at medium range), 1.04 of which cause hull damage. This means Admiral Spaun (hull 2) is sunk with two average broadsides. That may seem harsh.

But...

In Grand Fleets, the same scenario involves Weymouth's 6" guns (ROF +1, PEN 2 at medium range, DMG 2) scoring 2 hits (40% hit), penetrating 50% of the time (PEN 2 vs. Armor 7), for 2 points of damage. This means the Admiral Spaun (hull 5) is sunk with 2.5 average broadsides.

Not a whole lot of difference.

...and two or three hull boxes each, ships are gonna drop like flies.  I mean, the Weymouth's 6" guns are gonna tear through a lot of armored cruisers, and that wasn't the case historically.

Wasn't it? My data says 6"/50 guns would EASILY penetrate light cruiser armor at short ranges. (As shown in Grand Fleets -- PEN +3 at short range is pretty good; it nullifies up to 5" of armor.)

If anything, there might be room for a rule reducing the Piercing value of guns as range increases -- but that is outside the scope of the basic Starmada conversion I was trying to do.

We played two scenarios.  A meeting engagement between British and Austrian ships, then Brits against the Germans, and it just seemed bloody too soon.

Remember -- the focus of this (and any other dreadnought-era game) is likely not going to be the light cruisers.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

cricket wrote:
themattcurtis wrote:

Case in point -- you have a Weymouth class CL packing 6" guns with Piercing +1, versus an Austrian CL with Armor 1 and 3.9" guns with no Piercing attribute.

Weymouth's eight 6" guns (of which five can attack a single target) will score 2.5 hits in a given turn. Against the CL's armor 1, they will score
2.08 hits (at medium range), 1.04 of which cause hull damage. This means Admiral Spaun (hull 2) is sunk with two average broadsides. That may seem harsh.
But...
In Grand Fleets, the same scenario involves Weymouth's 6" guns (ROF +1, PEN 2 at medium range, DMG 2) scoring 2 hits (40% hit), penetrating 50% of the time (PEN 2 vs. Armor 7), for 2 points of damage. This means the Admiral Spaun (hull 5) is sunk with 2.5 average broadsides.
Not a whole lot of difference.

...and two or three hull boxes each, ships are gonna drop like flies.  I mean, the Weymouth's 6" guns are gonna tear through a lot of armored cruisers, and that wasn't the case historically.

Wasn't it? My data says 6"/50 guns would EASILY penetrate light cruiser armor at short ranges. (As shown in Grand Fleets -- PEN +3 at short range is pretty good; it nullifies up to 5" of armor.)
If anything, there might be room for a rule reducing the Piercing value of guns as range increases -- but that is outside the scope of the basic Starmada conversion I was trying to do.

We played two scenarios.  A meeting engagement between British and Austrian ships, then Brits against the Germans, and it just seemed bloody too soon.

Remember -- the focus of this (and any other dreadnought-era game) is likely not going to be the light cruisers.

Not that it makes much difference, but I thought I'd clarify that Dan's GF example is using data from GFII.
Kevin

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

underling wrote:

Not that it makes much difference, but I thought I'd clarify that Dan's GF example is using data from GFII.

Actually, no it's not.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

cricket wrote:
underling wrote:

Not that it makes much difference, but I thought I'd clarify that Dan's GF example is using data from GFII.

Actually, no it's not.

My bad.
I should have looked closer at the armor and penetration values.
For some reason they just seemed "odd."

  • Registered: 2007-09-13
  • Posts: 99

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Sorry Dan. . . you're gonna have to prove to us that it wasn't from GFII, by releasing GFII ASAP!

  • Registered: 2007-09-13
  • Posts: 99

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

I also noticed that armor was getting penetrated very easily. . . but the guns I noticed it with were generally 9+ inches and at relatively close range.  Under those circumstances, I don't think even the dreadnought armor of the time (until post Jutland) would have really stood up very well against it. . . assuming of course the shells weren't defective.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Gonna try this again.  After seeing Dan's math.....which may be a hair (and by a hair I mean, like, a metric ton) better than mine, I've decided to write up a few more scenarios and give it a big test run this weekend.   8)

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

I will now be using Dreadnoughts for all of my WW 1 battles. 
I was planning on adding these changes:
1)  If a ship turns more that 60 degress, it gets a "-1" to hit for that turn.
2)  The penetration ability of guns declines somewhat at longer ranges. Thus, all armor penetration by guns is "-1" at long range. 
(Torpedoes do not have this "-1" at long range.)

I was wondering what others think of these additions?

Another idea I thought of was to use the ship designer and keep everything the same, but to add "Extra Hull Damage" to all of the of the torpedoes.  Torpedoes in WW1 were brutal.  An Austrian Dreadnought was sunk by two torpedo hits in the Adriatic Sea, and many predreadnoughts and armored cruisers sank after only one torpedo or mine hit. :shock:

Just read the rules and am looking forward to using them.  I have c130 WW1 naval miniatures, mostly BBs.  I like having the exact CR for each ship as well as having simple, easy-to-use torpedo rules!   big_smile

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

BeowulfJB wrote:

I will now be using Dreadnoughts for all of my WW 1 battles. 
I was planning on adding these changes:
1)  If a ship turns more that 60 degress, it gets a "-1" to hit for that turn.
2)  The penetration ability of guns declines somewhat at longer ranges. Thus, all armor penetration by guns is "-1" at long range. 
(Torpedoes do not have this "-1" at long range.)
I was wondering what others think of these additions?
Another idea I thought of was to use the ship designer and keep everything the same, but to add "Extra Hull Damage" to all of the of the torpedoes.  Torpedoes in WW1 were brutal.  An Austrian Dreadnought was sunk by two torpedo hits in the Adriatic Sea, and many predreadnoughts and armored cruisers sank after only one torpedo or mine hit. :shock:
Just read the rules and am looking forward to using them.  I have c130 WW1 naval miniatures, mostly BBs.  I like having the exact CR for each ship as well as having simple, easy-to-use torpedo rules!   big_smile

Well *this* is really kind of depressing.
Why not use Grand Fleets, which is a rule set that was actually *designed* for historical games?
Kevin

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Hi Kevin,
I have a copy of Grand Fleets and think it is great, but just a little complex for me.  I think that Dreadnoughts will give me all that I need, especially ease-of-play.  I used to play GQ 2 & 3 because of their playability.  Dreadnought adds more detail, but not too much detail.  Also, I have been playing Starmada for several years which makes it very easy to learn DNs and teach others.
Also, there are many ships not listed in Grand Fleets or refits of many WW1 ships that are not listed there.  And then there is the idea of making up hypothetical ships... 8)
One of these is using the USS New York with 15 x 12"/50 guns in 5 triple turrets which was a fall-back plan if the 14"/45 guns could not be developed in time. :shock:

  • Registered: 2007-09-13
  • Posts: 99

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Don't worry Kevin. . . there are still plenty of us Grand Fleets players out here.  Exceptions on this forum aside, I think for the most part, the people playing Dreadnoughts are I expect relatively new to naval wargaming who might eventually move on to Grand Fleets, or people like myself who are avid Grand Fleets players, but need a faster system to run really large battles in a convention environment, where the rules must be taught at the same time as the game is played, and still fit in a relatively short time frame.

I love Dreadnoughts. . . but I am also chomping at the bit for GF II!!

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Soulmage wrote:

Don't worry Kevin. . . there are still plenty of us Grand Fleets players out here.  Exceptions on this forum aside, I think for the most part, the people playing Dreadnoughts are I expect relatively new to naval wargaming who might eventually move on to Grand Fleets, or people like myself who are avid Grand Fleets players, but need a faster system to run really large battles in a convention environment, where the rules must be taught at the same time as the game is played, and still fit in a relatively short time frame.
I love Dreadnoughts. . . but I am also chomping at the bit for GF II!!

Well, start chomping at the bit a little harder then. I've been kicking around some ideas for a truly mass naval combat game that could handle Jutland, Tsushima, and any other cast of hundreds game in a reasonable amount of time.
In addition to the GF II work, that is.
I'll keep you posted.
Kevin

  • Registered: 2007-09-13
  • Posts: 99

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Sweet!!  Bring it on!

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

I have Dreadnoughts, and Dan's alleviated some of my concerns about Penetration.  But I think the idea that it's equipped to handle Jutland is kinda....well....loopy.

You have six firing arcs.  You have the to-hit roll.  You have the Impact roll.  Then you have the roll on the ship's damage chart.  If you're attempting attacks needing a 7+, you have perhaps TWO to-hit rolls for a single ship.  You're really going to walk that down dozens of hulls per Game Turn?

There are other rule sets better suited for big actions.

On the other hand, I think Dreadnoughts could do a good job of introducing new players to naval wargaming.  Me, I use a bunch of house rules to simulate sea conditions, squalls and smoke screens.

E.G. -- Moderate Seas mean you pay for every turn/facing change.  In Heavy Seas movement costs are plain doubled -- and torpedoes aren't an option.

  • Registered: 2007-09-13
  • Posts: 99

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Oh ye of little faith!

That's where having a lot of experience running "mega battles" comes into play. . . .

I agree. . . it would be impossible to do if you treated it just like a game with your buddies.  Just won't work.

Instead you have to put measures in place to keep the game moving at a brisk pace, and find ways to cut corners. 

For example. .  making sure each person has a realistic number of units to control (a single squadron of ships in this case), and putting time limits on each phase to make sure they get through those units promptly.  What you move you move, what you shoot you shoot.  Don't finish soon enough, tough.

Then. . . first couple turns will be mostly sequential in terms of shooting, as people are learning the rules. . . after that. . . everything is simultaneous.  People find their opposite numbers and conduct their gunfire at the same time as all the rest of the people on their side.  There will be a little overlap here and there, but for the most part it will be possible to get through it fairly quickly. 

Then the other side all shoots at the same time.

Its all about keeping the game organized and moving at a brisk pace.  Once people get comfortable with the rules, and realize nobody is going to wait for them to dither back and forth all day, things run smoothly.

Anyway. . . done this many times with more complicated systems that S: Dreadnoughts. . . no reason it won't work in this case.  My only major concern is getting 17 players at the table.  But hopefully at GenCon that shouldn't be an issue.

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Hello everyone,

I just played another game of SAE Dreadnought.  The +3 Piercing that the heaviest guns have is brutal.  But it reflects the fact that the heavy guns of Dreadnought Battleships were powerful weapons.  I did notice some amusing quirks that would not really happened in WW1.  One of these is that any weapon, even smaller guns, which penetrate the armor of even the best armored of DNs, can knock-out a main gun turret.  In one of the games I played, a barrage of 6" shells from the British DN Valiant knocked out 3 of the 4 heavy gun turrets on the German DN Baden.  Historically, this would not have happened.  The UK 6" guns have a +1 piercing, which helped.  :shock: 

     Interestingly, no other navy's 6" guns have a +1 Piercing.  (Could this be an error?)  Perhaps +1 piercing should be reserved for 7" guns or higher.  I notice most 8" guns also only have a +1 Piercing and also only do one point of damage.  This makes them no better than the British 6" guns, which, historically, was not the case.  When I made the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge class BBs on the SAE-DN ship designer, I removed the +1 from their secondary 6" batteries.  I may remake them, giving them and the German Baden & Konig class BBs Level Five Armor.   These 4 classes of warships were about as well armored as the USA's Nevada, Pennsylvania, & New Mexico classes. 8)
     
The Piercing +3 will also make some interesting changes to the regular Starmada game.  Many of those I play against have level 5 shields on their Starmada starships.  0nly 1/3 of the shots from piercing weapons hitting them damaged them.  Now 2/3 of those hits will get thru, with Piercing +3. It will make the games more brutal.  Getting the first hits in will now be even more important.
This will make the heavy guns on my capital ships that shoot out to range 30 even more brutal. I have added this to my designs.  They did get a little more costly...

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

BeowulfJB wrote:

One of these is that any weapon, even smaller guns, which penetrate the armor of even the best armored of DNs, can knock-out a main gun turret.  In one of the games I played, a barrage of 6" shells from the British DN Valiant knocked out 3 of the 4 heavy gun turrets on the German DN Baden.  Historically, this would not have happened.

Why not? (I'm always wary of pronouncements like "This would NOT have happened"... smile)

If a gun can penetrate the appropriate armor, it certainly can cause damage. And even if a particular shell is "incapable" of penetrating the main turret's armor, it can still knock it out of action.

Interestingly, no other navy's 6" guns have a +1 Piercing.  (Could this be an error?)  Perhaps +1 piercing should be reserved for 7" guns or higher.  I notice most 8" guns also only have a +1 Piercing and also only do one point of damage.  This makes them no better than the British 6" guns, which, historically, was not the case.

Couple things:

1) A certain amount of approximation was necessary in the Starmada conversions -- especially with only 3 levels of piercing to play with.

2) The British 6" guns were pretty durned effective. Compared to other contemporary 6" guns, they had a heavier projectile weight and a higher muzzle velocity.

The Piercing +3 will also make some interesting changes to the regular Starmada game ... This will make the heavy guns on my capital ships that shoot out to range 30 even more brutal. I have added this to my designs.  They did get a little more costly...

And, you're wasting that cost against any target with shields less than 4...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

BeowulfJB wrote:

I will now be using Dreadnoughts for all of my WW 1 battles. 
I was planning on adding these changes:

2)  The penetration ability of guns declines somewhat at longer ranges. Thus, all armor penetration by guns is "-1" at long range. 
(Torpedoes do not have this "-1" at long range.)

I was wondering what others think of these additions?

  big_smile

Do not forget that at long ranges shells are plunging, hitting top armor which is always thinner.

Anyone recall when torpeodoes had a shallow or deep setting added?

Paul

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Dreadnoughts Penetration Concern

Paul is right about  plunging fire being brutal.  I think that a better idea is to only have a "-1" on penetration for medium range.  Most ships had an "immune zone" where the shells of guns similar to its main armament would not penetrate its deck armor or side armor.  This immune zone was usually at medium range. 8)

In WW1, torpedoes had shallow or deep setting added before they are fired.  Those that are set deep would no doubt half armor on capital ships, but go under & miss destroyers and perhaps light cruisers.  Torpedoes with a shallow setting could hit destroyers and all other ships, but would not half the armor of BBs, BCs, and possibly CAs.

Dan is right that piercing +3 is wasted on ships with shields that are <4, but nearly all of the ships I face when I am in South Florida at Gaming Glenn's store, have Level 5 shields.   My friends up here have level 5 shields on most of their shields also:  Their defenses are formidable!  :shock: 
However, only the heavy guns on my capital ships have +3 or +2.  The secondary guns do not even have any piercing at al.  They are used mostly for AA fire or to fire at hordes of shieldless, one-hull ships....