23 replies to this topic

[W. Clark]

I played GQ I and then II for twenty years plus. It's the rule set Jim O'Neil started me off with in Germany in the late 70s. The primary difference (and it is huge tactically) is that a ship's defense is based on her tonnage and belt armor as I recall. That plays to the strengths of Japanese heavy cruiser design and completely masks their weaknesses IMHO. That is because the strengths of Japanese design, heavy gun power, good belt armor and about 25 to 35% cheat in treaty weight get full play. However, it completely hides the fact that no Japanese cruiser gun mount has more than 1 inch of armor. It just does not model it. That means that those ten 8 inch guns get treated as if that 3,500 extra tons is devoted to their protection when almost none of it is. GQ3 fixed that by modelling both belt and turret armor.  In GQ3, Japanese heavy cruisers act as they did historically in that they are hard to sink and easy to cripple. The Japanese CAs in DTMB are all the best Japanese CA classes (Myoko, Takao & Mogami). Believe me when I say that 6 of those together (and that is very likely in DTMB) is daunting enough IMHO using GQ3. But if you are playing the Allies with a standard start and have opted for GQ 1 or 2 as your tactical rules then you are a better man than I Gunga Din.

 

WMC

[W. Clark]

I read your AAR for the campaign. First of all, kudos to all involved. You make my heart warm with joy that you have played the campaign and enjoyed it. Another Allied victory and another ANZACs save the day occurrence. Yes, the Allied player had some luck, but it was his patience to preserve his forces and not throw them away when the odds were not in his favor that gave the win. Remember, the EAF has the most to do and the least to do it with. Beat the EAF and win. 4 EAF convoy CDs not completed will give you the win.

 

WMC

[healey36]

Terrific recap of the campaign and all its aspects; thanks for posting!

 

With regards to IJN vs. USN cruiser configurations/architecture, it would seem five twin eight-inch turrets (Myōkō-class) would have an advantage over three triple eight-inch (Northampton-class), at least from the standpoint of hits absorbed by the main-battery. 

[W. Clark]

Yes, I agree in that the dispersal between five turrets in itself is a form of protection, that is modelled by all versions of GQ. But the defense factor in GQ 1 & 2 is based on the ship's displacement and married with the ship's belt armor gives you your defense. Obviously, the Japanese 25 to 35% displacement treaty cheat in their premier CAs gives them an advantage when the defense is modeled that way. GQ3 on the other hand breaks a ship's defense down into displacement (hull boxes) and penetration protection (armor). But because GQ3 does not lump the turrets in with the belt armor (they have their own protection level) it models the protection that a ship's armor layout gives or does not give much better IMHO than the earlier versions of GQ. All of the above is acerbated by GQ 1 & 2 using an odds system for gunnery resolution. The gunnery factor for ten eight-inch guns is obviously higher than that for 9 guns. This combines with the Japanese cruiser's much greater displacement to distort their protection to being greater than it was. Thus, an engagement between a New Orleans class cruiser and a Myoko, Takao or Mogami class cruiser beyond 15,000 yards has a completely different dynamic when using GQ3 as opposed to GQ 1 or 2. In GQ3 the New Orleans class has the advantage gunnery wise as its CA(CA) protection means that the Japanese cruiser is not penetrating its armor while it penetrates the Japanese cruiser's turret armor easily. In GQ1 & 2 it is just the opposite with all the advantage going to the Japanese cruiser's greater displacement (defense factor) and its greater attack factor giving it the odds advantage as its' weak turret armor is not modelled at all.

 

In GQ1 & 2 a Japanese Myoko, Takao or Mogami class cruiser ruled unless capital ships were present. In GQ3 they are powerful but have weaknesses in their design that better protected US cruisers (New Orleans, Brooklyn & Wichita classes) can try to exploit. In fact the Japanese CAs should not be much better in protection than the rebuilt Kent class or the Portland class as all have CA belt armor coupled with CS or CL turret armor. Remember that when the Japanese CAs were rebuilt that all of the increased displacement went to increases in their AA battery and torpedo armament. That should not make their defense factor better and in GQ 1 & 2 it does.

 

WMC