428 replies to this topic

[W. Clark]

we are just so punny.

 

WMC

[simanton]

"According to Thought Co, in the Japanese language, the word suki is pronounced "suh-kee" and means a liking of, love of, or fondness for...Urban dictionary states that the word suki can also be slang for "love," because "daisuki" in Japanese means "to like a lot."  "Suki" can be seen as slang for the word "daisuki."  

[W. Clark]

It's not that I don't like the Akatsuki and Akitsuki classes of destroyers. It's just that they are not the Porter or Tribal classes when it comes to gunnery IMNSHO. 

 

WMC

[healey36]

Perhaps the ultimate fantasy scenario for FAI is the HSF's operational plan for late-October, 1918, sometimes referred to as the Death Ride of the High Seas Fleet. Intended as an all-in fleet action by the HSF to lure the Grand Fleet out for a climactic engagement that might have seen the annihilation of one fleet or the other (with the odds tipped sharply in favor of the RN for its technical improvements over the prior year). It never happened, as the HSF's capital ship crews mutinied, preventing a unified sortie. Less than two weeks later, the war was over.

Could have been something...



It's interesting to note that the Americans (battleships New York, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Wyoming) were available to Beatty, and likely to participate, in the form of the Sixth Battle Squadron, commanded by Rear Admiral Hugh Rodman.

[simanton]

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an interesting alternate history story based on the sortie actually coming off.  Romanticized, but interesting!

[W. Clark]

I did a mid 1916 Jutland what if using the old Avalon Hill Jutland plot map about 7 or 8 years ago at Enfilade. I gave the High Seas Fleet commander three choices at trying to provoke a limited engagement with the Grand Fleet.

1. He could strike at the Firth of Forth and have a go at the Battle cruisers.

2. He could bombard minor port cities on the east coast of England (as they had in 1915).

3. He could strike at the Channel Fleet.

 

He chose the Channel Fleet as it was closer to his base, and he might be able to overwhelm it with just his battle cruisers, and his battle fleet would act as back up. If successful, then the RN would have to reinforce from other commands to protect the Army's communications with England and provide further possible opportunity to whittle the Brits down. What he didn't know was that Room 40 gave the Brits 4 hours' notice of the Germans sortieing. But it did not tell them what his objective was.

 

The Brit decided to go for the whole shebang and steam for the German base as he figured he could get there before the German could get back. In the event (it ran over 2 days) the actual German tactical commander changed twice, and they decided to await their battle fleet before engaging the Channel Fleet. That took too long (even though they pummeled the Channel Fleet) and they were intercepted on the way home by the Brit BCs and then the whole Grand Fleet off Texel and were annihilated. I think Texel Island is just to the SE of the proposed battle sight.

 

WMC

[healey36]

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an interesting alternate history story based on the sortie actually coming off.  Romanticized, but interesting!

I recall reading the story (The Death Voyage) a very long time ago; it was in a collection of naval fiction written during the interwar period. You can find a version here:

 

https://www.arthur-c...he_Death_Voyage

[W. Clark]

I wrote an extensive AAR but I cannot find it now. I think it went in the data dump a few years back.

 

WMC

[simanton]

I did a mid 1916 Jutland what if using the old Avalon Hill Jutland plot map about 7 or 8 years ago at Enfilade. I gave the High Seas Fleet commander three choices at trying to provoke a limited engagement with the Grand Fleet.

1. He could strike at the Firth of Forth and have a go at the Battle cruisers.

2. He could bombard minor port cities on the east coast of England (as they had in 1915).

3. He could strike at the Channel Fleet.

 

He chose the Channel Fleet as it was closer to his base, and he might be able to overwhelm it with just his battle cruisers, and his battle fleet would act as back up. If successful, then the RN would have to reinforce from other commands to protect the Army's communications with England and provide further possible opportunity to whittle the Brits down. What he didn't know was that Room 40 gave the Brits 4 hours' notice of the Germans sortieing. But it did not tell them what his objective was.

 

The Brit decided to go for the whole shebang and steam for the German base as he figured he could get there before the German could get back. In the event (it ran over 2 days) the actual German tactical commander changed twice, and they decided to await their battle fleet before engaging the Channel Fleet. That took too long (even though they pummeled the Channel Fleet) and they were intercepted on the way home by the Brit BCs and then the whole Grand Fleet off Texel and were annihilated. I think Texel Island is just to the SE of the proposed battle sight.

 

WMC

Very interesting!  I can well believe that the game took 2 days, and I'm sure that the double change of command didn't do the Germans any favors!

[W. Clark]

No, it did not. They had a very narrow window with the original plan, and each succeeding tabletop commander made changes that took time they didn't have to implement. The Grand Fleet was firmly astride the direct path home by the time the Germans got to Texel Island, and they were flanked to the north by the battle cruiser fleet. The other problem was the fuel limits of the German destroyers that severely hampered their ability to try and dodge around. Even if a portion of their dreadnoughts managed to evade and escape their destroyers would have run out of fuel before they could get home if they ventured very far to the north.

 

The basic problem with the plan was that it was based on the Brits reacting to a German attack that had already occurred, and Room 40 threw that out. The original Brit planner looked at all the area he was trying to defend and decided that he could not expect to get it done. His answer was to go straight for the German base as soon as Room 40 told him the Germans were at sea. After all they have to RTB before their fuel runs out and he intended to be there waiting.

 

WMC

[simanton]

Yes.  Basically, what Jellicoe wanted to do.

[W. Clark]

We ran it without the light forces actually being on the table, but they were assumed to be present and their operational fate (fuel limits) affected both sides thinking and actions.

 

WMC

[simanton]

Interesting!  It definitely had that influence on both sides without dragging out the game.  Otherwise, it probably would have been a bit longer than 2 days!

[W. Clark]

I had the ships (I have them now), but even using the DD divisional or half flotilla ship cards and the ships based accordingly would have doubled the lead on the table. IMHO you are right in your belief that it would have taken much longer and slowed the game perceptively if not bogged it down. I vaguely remember at least one player asking why I had not included the Flotillas and light cruiser squadrons, and I pointed out in return that they were there abstractly giving early warning, and each fleet commander and sub commander were keeping track of their locations on the map. But if they were on the table then the time taken to make each tabletop move would have at least doubled in the best-case scenario. It was a game play decision that I did not make lightly but IMHO it was right decision needed to get the game done with in the time allowed.

 

WMC

[simanton]

That's exactly in line with my experience!  I really appreciate the scenarios that have been posted featuring small quantities of light forces mixing it up, but with major forces they really introduce "bog down" inertia!  I agree, it was the right decision!

[healey36]

I think the largest dust-up we've hosted here was Sunderland II back in 2016, a clash of scouting groups set in August 1916. All said and done, we had 50+ 1/6000-scale ships on the table, including six flotilla of destroyers/torpedo-boats. We did not use the DD flotilla maneuver rules, instead tracking each individually (used counters instead of 1/6000-scale models for the individual DDs). 

 

 

There were four of us, as I recall, so the shoals of destroyers didn't slow play too terribly. We came up with a way to streamline plotting their movement that worked to minimize the bookkeeping. That said, I wouldn't want to have too many more of them sprinting about (without using the flotilla rules).

 

I can't say we've had a WWI game where the DD/torpedo-boats proved themselves terrifically effective in taking capital ships down, but the sight of them can be quite intimidating.

[simanton]

Interesting, I'm sure!  I wish I could have seen it!

[W. Clark]

I did not expect to have players experienced in FAI although I had a couple. I figured that teaching enough of the rules to play when primarily limited to gunnery was enough for their plates without adding an immense number of torpedoes from both sides in the bargain. I wanted too, but I decided to leave well enough alone and the game ran right up to the time limit as it was. So, in retrospect I'm still of the opinion that it was the best decision I could make given those limitations.

 

I've since replaced everything the fire took and have based my destroyer divisions/half flotillas for use with the division ship cards but I'm 73 and I'm not sure that I'm up to putting on that size of game again. I'd like too but I've, my doubts. What would really get me going is if someone was to publish through ODGW a North Sea campaign using the CD game mechanic. That would inspire me even if I was dead.

 

WMC

[healey36]

...without adding an immense number of torpedoes from both sides in the bargain.

That's the thing...in WWI, few if any DD/torpedo-boat is sporting anything like two rotating quadruple mounts. Some have just a pair of single mounts, and some of those are only effective on one side. Unless you have vast numbers of torpedo-boats, you're not blackening the sea with fish. That and the shorter torpedo ranges seems to sharply reduce the effectiveness.

 

Then again, maybe I'm playing it wrong...

[simanton]

I did not expect to have players experienced in FAI although I had a couple. I figured that teaching enough of the rules to play when primarily limited to gunnery was enough for their plates without adding an immense number of torpedoes from both sides in the bargain. I wanted too, but I decided to leave well enough alone and the game ran right up to the time limit as it was. So, in retrospect I'm still of the opinion that it was the best decision I could make given those limitations.

 

I've since replaced everything the fire took and have based my destroyer divisions/half flotillas for use with the division ship cards but I'm 73 and I'm not sure that I'm up to putting on that size of game again. I'd like too but I've, my doubts. What would really get me going is if someone was to publish through ODGW a North Sea campaign using the CD game mechanic. That would inspire me even if I was dead.

 

WMC

Glad to hear you are recovering from the fire!