7 replies to this topic

[jwsleser]

While writing our comments about anvil attacks et.al., the issue of the Torpedo Evasion roll came up. At the heart of the matter is what exactly is that roll modeling?

 

Evading torpedoes requires a ship to either turn towards or away from the torpedoes (combing the wakes) or turning such so not to enter an area where torpedoes are suspected to be present. This isn’t a maneuver that is simply a few small, quick turns while maintaining a base course like salvo chasing. Those types of movements are already accounted for in the numbers to hit on the Torpedo CRT (just like chasing salvos). It is significant turn onto a course that is held for a length of time. Such maneuvering is a major disruption to movement and formations. 

 

Currently movement is plotted first, followed by torpedo attacks, then movement is executed. Torpedo attacks are then adjudicated. Torpedo firing arcs and ranges are checked to see if there are any eligible target for resolution. Under 1.4.6 Resolving Attacks - Target Evasion (p.1-6) eligible targets are then allowed to roll to see if they spot the torpedoes and evade. If a successful roll, the attacker must add add 1 or 2 to the die roll for resolving the attack (remember those numbers, 1 and 2). It is assumed that a successful roll meant the target ship turned to evade the torpedoes. Yet at the end of the turn, the ship ends its move at the same location as if it it never turned at all (assuming no hits). There are no turns or disruption from evading the torpedos. 

 

Unless a wargame group is lucky to have umpires that allow hidden anything, everyone knows when torpedoes hit the water. There is nothing one can do about that and is one of the reasons for the evade roll. Yet nothing prevents a player in the second and subsequence turns of any torpedo movement from either turning towards the torpedoes (a down 1 row for a bow shot) or away (a down 2 rows for a stern shot). 

 

Our House rule: In the turn when the torpedoes first hit the water, the opposing player can opt to make evade rolls for any of their ships. They can chose to make a single die roll for a formation, or individual rolls by ship (but not both for the same ship(s)). This is declared prior to any rolls being made. If a ship or formation successfully rolls a 1 or 2 (this is for resolving whether the torpedoes are spotted, not used as modifiers), it will ignore its written orders and move a minimum of 5kts ahead, and then must move such to be clearly attempting to evade the torpedoes. They can’t continue to move in accordance to their orders (it is assumed that if they believe their current orders will avoid the torpedoes, they won’t make the evade roll. If they panic and make the roll, and then realize it wasn't needed, they still need to make the evade maneuver). Ships that don’t roll or fail the evade roll all execute their orders as written. Torpedo attacks are then adjudicated against any ships per the rules. If the evade move places the torpedo attack as a bow or stern shot, the applicable row shift is applied (that 1 or 2 you have seen before). If not, no adjustment is used. 

 

No evade rolls can be made against torpedoes moving in their second or subsequent movement runs. Players can clearly plot orders to evade torpedoes if they so wish. No get out of jail card if they planned poorly. 

 

Comments?

 

v/r  Jeff

[JAHinson]

"No evade rolls can be made against torpedoes moving in their second or subsequent movement runs. Players can clearly plot orders to evade torpedoes if they so wish. No get out of jail card if they planned poorly."

 

I concur in the way we play without an umpire and not using 'fake post-it notes' for deception.  If a gaming group, as you note in para 4, is lucky enough to have an umpire, I think the evade roll ought to be allowed the moment the torpedo is known to be entering the range band, and the ship ought to move appropriately to evade if successful.

[Jim O'Neil]

We tried the post it note being used every turn the ships were in a position to launch torpedoes ... it was a bust. Then we tried written notes, which worked except for exactly where the firing ship was when it fired ... Smaller stickies (little round or square things) helped a lot, posted for every move by the command ship. Following ships an be placed accordingly then.

 

Evading torpedoes. First the ship has to know they were launched ... realistically, it's not necessarily obvious ...  note the compressed air used by the IJN. Gunpowder flashes and leaves a puff of smoke. I'd suggest a spotting roll to see the launch AT CLOSE RANGE. At longer range  you can't see the launch necessarily [gun powder is more visible at night, how much more I can't say].

 

At Longer ranges Evade rolls Are Valid if the torpedoes leave a wake! Nothing like a white wake running your way to warn you. This ability is modified by the height of the observer above the water, DDs get slim warning, cruisers do better and BBs and CVs see along way. A spotter aircraft gives a lot of notice if it sees the launch or the torpedoes running. The offset is that the rapidity of response by the ship is in the inverse order. Lastly, another ship blowing up is a giveaway, although perhaps too late.

[jwsleser]

Good day Jim

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Evading torpedoes. First the ship has to know they were launched ... realistically, it's not necessarily obvious ...  note the compressed air used by the IJN. Gunpowder flashes and leaves a puff of smoke. I'd suggest a spotting roll to see the launch AT CLOSE RANGE. At longer range  you can't see the launch necessarily [gun powder is more visible at night, how much more I can't say].

 

Agree. This is where the evade roll makes some sense. The issue here is that if the ship successfully spots the torpedo, it isn't required to actually make the maneuver needed to evade. Hence the first part of the house rule that requires the ship to maneuver. The down 1 or 2 rows aren't a freebie with the target ship serenely moving on.

 

 At Longer ranges Evade rolls Are Valid if the torpedoes leave a wake! Nothing like a white wake running your way to warn you. This ability is modified by the height of the observer above the water, DDs get slim warning, cruisers do better and BBs and CVs see along way. A spotter aircraft gives a lot of notice if it sees the launch or the torpedoes running. The offset is that the rapidity of response by the ship is in the inverse order. Lastly, another ship blowing up is a giveaway, although perhaps too late.

 

Everything thing you state here is possible, but not 100%. Doorman at Java Sea turned away twice not because someone saw the torpedoes, but that the enemy movements indicated that it was happening. He was correct both times. This also happened during the Battle of Komandorski Islands. There are examples where ships maneuvered to avoid torpedoes that were never fired. 

 

The problem is that the players know torpedoes are in the water. It is obvious on the table. Instead of trying to create systems to hide that fact which either don't work or are so cumbersome that they aren't effective, just live wth it. If players wish to maneuver to avoid torpedoes in the second and subsequent turns of a torpedo's run, let them. To me it is obvious that when destroyers get too close/gaining a good firing angle and they are taking a lot of fire, why won't they launch torpedoes? Why won't I maneuver to spoil their possible attack? Or do I feel lucky and take the risk? These are the types of decisions the actual captains had to make.

 

Because the way the rules are structured, giving players a last minute chance to maneuver in the first turn of a torpedo's run is a gamey thing, but I do live with it. I personally wouldn't allow it, but it is a compromise. Players see the destroyers approaching. They know what they can do. They have opportunity to maneuver prior to any possible torpedo launch if they so chose. If they decide not to maneuver, then what happens should happen. Torpedo hits are not automatic. 

 

​Here is an actually situation that came up in our last game (I am currently writing up the AAR). In a stern chase a Japanese destroyer division was closing. I decided to launch to keep the enemy ship on its current course and hope for a hit as a second DD division closing on the enemy's port side would launch its torpedoes the next turn. So my first launch was a stern shot chasing the enemy that would reach it in the torpedoes' third turn. What maneuver could the target ship make given it was already in the best possible position relative to the closing torpedoes? Turn to port? Turn to starboard? What does an evade maneuver actually look like in this situation? Moving one or two yards to one side? Allowing an evade roll makes absolutely no sense. 

 

The game already has a mechanism that rewards the actual maneuvers used to avoid torpedoes: bow or stern shot modifiers. Add to this that if the first torpedo fired from a mount is a miss, then all the other torpedoes from that mount are a miss. Think about that. Instead of four chances to score a hit (if a four mount), players only have one. Our house forces players to use the actual maneuvers needed to avoid torpedoes. No freeby with a roll without the target ship not having to do anything. No additional bonus if the target maneuvers correctly as the current bonus already rewards the actual use of the maneuver. Player should learn to actually maneuver their ships if they are threaten by destroyers, not let the game give them a saving roll.

 

Again this is just a house rule. I hope I have given members something to think about.

 

v/r  Jeff 

[Jim O'Neil]

Agree with most all you say, but we have found a reasonable (I think) way to keep torpedoes launching hidden, by simply having the command ship put a small marker beside it's location each turn. It also shows how they game played out ... if it stayed on the table ... ships can move and make the game surface move ruining the little mark concept some.

 

I too have discarded the rule about "if the first torpedo misses"; that's why you shoot spreads. I think the concepts that the miss was just "the best shot of the spread" and the miss shows the spread was too far off, but the idea leaks a bit in reality. But the hit probability is surely adjusted to that concept.

[jwsleser]

Jim

 

Agree with most all you say, but we have found a reasonable (I think) way to keep torpedoes launching hidden, by simply having the command ship put a small marker beside it's location each turn. It also shows how they game played out ... if it stayed on the table ... ships can move and make the game surface move ruining the little mark concept some.

 

Can you provide more detail on how this works? Are you saying that you place a marker at the end of every move to create a shell game? The enemy doesn't know which one marks an actual torpedo launch (if any)? If that is correct, I assume a ship rolls for evasion if it is determined to be in the correct range/arc of an actual torpedo? I again would require the ship to actually execute the evade if a successful roll. How do you indicate the required data (firing point/torpedo angle for each ship) to adjudicate an actual torpedo attack? If what I have stated is correct, that appears to be a very awkward, time consuming system.  

 

I too have discarded the rule about "if the first torpedo misses"; that's why you shoot spreads. I think the concepts that the miss was just "the best shot of the spread" and the miss shows the spread was too far off, but the idea leaks a bit in reality. But the hit probability is surely adjusted to that concept.

 

We haven't discarded that particular rule because it does save time and I agree that the Torpedo CRT is adjusted to that mechanism. One would need to reduce the hit probabilities to reflect the increased number of die rolls. By itself, this mechanism works fairly well especially given the low number of torpedoes involved compared to gunfire. It is when it is combined with the evasion roll and the actual player decision to maneuver his ship to create bow/stern shots where the burden becomes too great.

 

Now the Equivalent Damage rolls is a similar kettle of fish which seriously distorts game play, but that will await a future post.  

 

v/r  Jeff

[Jim O'Neil]

Jeff, When playing with two groups, each gets a colored dot about ⅛ inch in diameter. They are numbered 1 to ?  The element puts down a dot beside the formation flag ship starting with one and tracks that formations movement. There is a note pad on which any Toledo launches are entered beside the dot # and messages are sent, limited to the number of words per the rules. US TBS waves a lot of this limit but time means messages have to be scribbled quickly ;-)  fun things can happen. The stress of combat.

 

RE: torpedo spread - Yes, I have probably overdone it with the torpedoes. Guess I'll need to adjust some.

 

RE: Equivalent Damage - Don't open the bag! You'll be sorry!  The variations between ship sizes in each category [Yubari and Brooklyn are both "Light Cruisers"]  and the terminal effects of different nations projectiles, let alone managing with which type of shell was fired will send you to a nut house. The SURFACE COMBAT CHARTS would be come a sizable book!

 

Just trying to group ships by armor and displacement would significantly add to the charts.

 

Just for grins, against Lonnie's advice, I decided to see how much separating shell performance by nation would "improve" gunnery outcomes. I used 6" guns. 

The USN only had two 6" gun types with about five ammo types used during the war, as the US tried to simplify supply and production. Of course putting a VT fuse on a 6" shell changes things too.   The chart for the US 6" suddenly became multiple different 6" entries omitting those used on submarines, with only minor differences in some cases.  The British, Germans, Italians and Japanese had several different 6" guns with more significant differences ... it got crazy very quickly. Lonnie laughed and said "I told you so".

[jwsleser]

RE: Torpedo Evasion. Thank you Jim for your explanation. It is what I assumed. I doubt we will adopt that method, but good to know any options.

 

RE: Equivalent Damage. Yes well aware of that approach, completely unworkable without a computer. My concern is a bit different. I might get a discussion posted up today. It has been rolling around in my head for more than a week. 

 

v/r  Jeff