Jump to content


Photo

Changing the Turn Sequence


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Aman

Aman

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 03:10 PM

Have run about a dozen WWII in the Solomon's games, all at night, mostly using DDs and some CLs, but about to set out for a big Savo Game this August 9th.  We've very much enjoyed the games, and among the most popular have been "small actions" with each player commanding a DD or two in 1/700 scale.

 

A few things I've noted that slow down or confuse the game during night actions...First, the acquiring of targets has a bit of an "instant acquire - fire" feel, seems too easy.  Second, there's a slowdown as players think about their targets and should they use searchlights / star shells / switch targets, etc.  They almost can't help but to commiserate about it, and I can't be bothered to stop it since they're often forgetting, then trying to be helpful and remind each other, etc.  Third, having read a bunch of memoirs, I'd love to get a feel of an "attack run" with the DDs, that aggressive charge forward, loosing of the torpedoes and then veering off, almost like an airplane attack.

 

Based upon this experience, am considering changing the turn sequence to the following:

 

1) Tactical Plot Phase

2) Damage Control Phase

3) Gunnery Phase

4) Movement Phase

5)Torpedo Attack Phase

6) Detection Phase

 

I _believe_ it will ease play during night actions.  

Players will start by plotting and ordering, including their targets and if they plan to light up the target with SL or SS, but they'd not yet know if their damage was repaired [DCT, etc].

 

Then Damage Control will occur

[presently, the damage of gunnery can be repaired immediately, so there's no effect. This will mandate nearly a full turn with something broken, affecting gunnery, movement or detection abilities]

 

Then they will fire upon the designated targets from their orders, and informed by the detection phase of the previous turn.

 

Movement will then occur, with torpedo attacks along the way.  I am hoping to make it possible for DDs and such to make an actual "attack run", the parabola they'd often steer to fire torpedoes.  

 

Finally, Detection / Acquisition would occur, giving players some new possibilities to consider for their plotting of movement and gunnery.

 

For those of you who are old salts with the game, do you see any problems with this revised turn sequence?  I've been very busy with annoying real life issues and haven't had a chance to really think it over in detail, so would very much appreciate your thoughts.

 

Anchors Aweigh!

 

 



#2 MatthewB

MatthewB

    Private

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 16 September 2015 - 04:19 PM

You seem to be doing exactly what I plan on doing with GQ3.

I too am a collector of 1/700 Ships, and I have been working on assembling the fleets for the USN and IJN for the Solomons Campaigns (The only two ships I am having trouble getting are the USS Salt Lake City, and USS Pensacola. The only companies that make them are currently out of business or re-tooling - I may be helping with the re-tooling, since I am a pretty capable CAD and 3D artist).

But I too have been wondering what to do about things like hidden movement, or detection.

One thing I have considered is computerizing the combat resolution and movement, and detection, and integrating a continuous movement system. 

I have already begun to work on alternative movement compasses that allow for things like "5º Right Rudder" vs "Left-Standard Rudder," which was typically about 20º, depending upon the ship (Each ship usually has a chart for the helmsman to learn how many degrees "standard" vs "full" rudder is).

I am trying to create a compass like device that will allow for any degree of rudder, but this would require a table to indicate which ships have what turning radius at however many degrees of rudder (since DDs typically had a longer advance and larger turning radius for their Length:Beam ration than did larger CAs or BBs). I have a friend in the Netherlands who is a Naval Architect who is helping me sort out generalizations, so that I can just create a table for each nation in WWII that details the turning radius and advance for each class.

But the Turn Sequence is something that has bothered me regarding the accounts I have read in books such as Neptune's Inferno, or Cpt. Hara's IJN Destroyer Captain

From those books, it would seem that damage tended to take a while to get squared away (in the realm of 10 minutes to an hour), rather than the 3 to 6 minutes of a turn. True, some fires were easily extinguished, such as when it was just a life-raft on fire, which could simply be thrown overboard. But things like a burning Ammo Caisson or Fuel Oil could be more intractable.

I wish that I could find out if this forum had email notifications for responses, as I would like to follow this more closely (without having to remind myself to check), so that it might be possible to work out these issues.

BTW, what scale are you using for movement?

I have so far used 1cm = 40yds (1" = 100yds) for the 1/700 light forces (DDs and CLs - I have yet to get my Cruisers, and BBs finished for the IJN and USN forces; just the Hiei, Haruna and Kirishima for the IJN, and the Washington and South Dakota for the USN). But I worry that even 1" = 100yds will be too tight for the larger ships. In the accounts I read, the USN would not have much trouble, as the USS Washington and USS S. Dakota were separated by around 2,000yds... But the IJN had their big ships much closer, around 1,500 yards.... And the Hiei model (which would be nearly identical to the Haruna and Kirishima) is about 12.25" long. I have not yet bought the Washington and S. Dakota, yet, but they look to be just as large.

I know gamers have a tendency to bunch their ships much more closely than occurred IRL, but I tend to stick more closely to actual doctrine and seakeeping procedures (and keep the ships further apart, knowing that they tended to all have different seakeeping capabilities, which each Captain would not be completely familiar with, even though they were aware of this fact).

I have been thinking about going to a 1cm = 25yds (1" = 62.5yds, or 4cm = 100yds).... But then I will need a far larger area than the 10' x 18' area were have been using (roughly 4 ping-pong tables).

I have been thinking about seeing if the game store would let us clear an area of floor to use.

MB






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users