8 replies to this topic

[Martin Jerred]

One thing that has come out of the pre-release titbits is the 1D12 per pair of barrels. Why per pair? What happens with triple mount turrets? Take the example shown of Glasgow: 4 triple mounts for 12 barrels or 6 dice what happens when she loses a turret (which it appears is likely to happen as there are hit location rules). From what I can see there is a dummy wammy as the starting number of dice is rounded down (so 9 barrels is 4 dice) yet the loss of a triple turret is rounded up (so lose 2 dice per turret).I know the answer is wait until next week. It just seems to me that if you're going down the dice/barrel route then 1 dice/barrel would be the KISS approach.Comments anyone?Zippeeoriginally asked on the Yahoo group - who suggested it be added in here.

[CinC]

Zippee,Lonnie is preparing the debut of GQIII at Conquest in San Francisco this weekend. Upon his return, he will be online to answer questions regarding the rules and to contribute to the site. I hope you can wait until then, since the designer is the most capable person to answer design questions.Thanks for contributing!CinC

[DAVID THORNLEY]

There is what seems to me an ahistoric advantage for four twins over three triples in GQIII.Three triples provide one extra tube, and in cases where the triples will fire as fast as the twins and where dispersion is not a problem. As far as I've been able to find, most triples fired about as fast as most twins, with some exceptions. Further, dispersion tended not to be a major problem, once dealt with, again with some exceptions. For example, the US triple 14" turrets in WWI had a very long firing cycle compared to, say, the 16" twins, and the Italian triple turrets often had great dispersion.The four twins also have a bogus survivability advantage. In GQIII, for reasons of playability, the likelihood of a main battery hit is independent of how big the main battery is. In real life, shells come down pretty much at random, and the likelihood of a main battery hit depends on how big a target the main battery is. Therefore, one would expect more hits on a set of four twins than three triples, which should balance out the fact that a hit on a triple turret would be more harmful than a hit on a twin (putting out one more gun).Historically, navies moved towards three triples over time, some navies going faster than others. This is contrary to the advantages in GQIII, which therefore appears to be ahistorical in this respect.

[gregoryk]

Zippee wrote:

One thing that has come out of the pre-release titbits is the 1D12 per pair of barrels. Why per pair? What happens with triple mount turrets? Take the example shown of Glasgow: 4 triple mounts for 12 barrels or 6 dice what happens when she loses a turret (which it appears is likely to happen as there are hit location rules). From what I can see there is a dummy wammy as the starting number of dice is rounded down (so 9 barrels is 4 dice) yet the loss of a triple turret is rounded up (so lose 2 dice per turret).I know the answer is wait until next week. It just seems to me that if you're going down the dice/barrel route then 1 dice/barrel would be the KISS approach.Comments anyone?

I cannot help but ask — what is a "dummy wammy?"Without commenting on the discussion regarding triple versus twin mount turrets, there is a way to roll one die per tube if you want to go the "buckets of dice" route, i.e., doubling the number of times you roll per ship. I found a source for d24's @ $1.10/die, which compares favorably with d12 prices. Then you keep the odds identical and account for every gun individually. If that is what you want to do.Cheers,Gregory

[Martin Jerred]

LOL"dummy wammy" is a typo for "double wammy"which hopefully doesn't need explanation...The "buckets of dice" mechanic is already in place, it just seems logical to go to 1 per tube. I'd accept a modifier for triple turrets based on the descriptions some have given (on the Yahoo group) of the difficulties assocciated with them but I have a hard time believing the current degradation of triple mounts is fair. 4xtriples (6 dice) lose a turret so reduce to 4 dice for 9 tubes. 6xtwins (6 dice) lose 2 turrets so reduce to 4 dice for 8 tubes. What was equal is now unequal - and the twins took more damage (2 turret hits).Zippee

[Lonnie Gill]

The new gunnery system, which features one die per pair of main battery guns, evolved as a means to have a more intutitive system without the math of odds or differences with each attack. Multiple dice for more guns is intutitive as are the results: 1 = 1 hit, 2 = 2 hits, 3 = 3 hits along with 10 and 11 (variations of 1) = one hit and 12 (a variation of 2) = two hits. Simple, elegant. However, the rub comes in having multiple dice attacks end up with rational, historical results. A D12 for each barrel would result in too many hits - and probably carry the "bucket of dice" idea to an extreme. One D12 per pair of main battery guns gives the right probability spread and also emulates one per turret for many ships. You'll note that approach was taken for secondary and tertiary armament where it's one die per box (representing two guns).Placing a number of guns in the main turret/mount box was done to provide more realistic damage results. When designers chose to move to triple and quad turrets, the risk was accepted that the loss of one of them would mean a greater reduction in firepower. That's the price paid for the weight reduction in turrets and more importantly, the reduction in ship length and area occupied by armament - which needed to be armored. Totaling the main guns and rolling a die for each pair is easy, but a decision must be made when that total results in an odd number of guns. The rule decision was made to round down if a triple turret and round up if a single gun mount. As a lot of the comment on other web sites have indicated, most navies had varying levels of trouble with triple turrets (which they solved with varying success) and many designers - especially British - concluded that twin turrets led to better salvo dispersion. The advantages of multiple gun turrets are in weight, space and armor savings, not in improved gunnery. Thus, it would not be appropriate to reward a triple turret design the advantage of an extra D12 for that one gun. Losses of triple turrets results in more than linear reduction of D12s, which reflects the risks of putting more eggs in one basket.

[gregoryk]

thornley wrote:

There is what seems to me an ahistoric advantage for four twins over three triples in GQIII.Three triples provide one extra tube, and in cases where the triples will fire as fast as the twins and where dispersion is not a problem. As far as I've been able to find, most triples fired about as fast as most twins, with some exceptions. Further, dispersion tended not to be a major problem, once dealt with, again with some exceptions. For example, the US triple 14" turrets in WWI had a very long firing cycle compared to, say, the 16" twins, and the Italian triple turrets often had great dispersion.The four twins also have a bogus survivability advantage. In GQIII, for reasons of playability, the likelihood of a main battery hit is independent of how big the main battery is. In real life, shells come down pretty much at random, and the likelihood of a main battery hit depends on how big a target the main battery is. Therefore, one would expect more hits on a set of four twins than three triples, which should balance out the fact that a hit on a triple turret would be more harmful than a hit on a twin (putting out one more gun).

Without getting into a discussion of the relative sizes and vulnerabilities of triple turrets vs twins (e.g., triples are larger; knocking out a turret may not necessarily mean landing a shell right on top of it, but be damage to associated spaces), I think there is a solution. See Optional Rule 1.7.5, "Specific Mounts," p.5-2. If you use this rule, then it is more likely that a four-turret vessel will take hits on its main turrets than a three-turret ship. For example, a ‘4’ on a four-turret and a three-turret ship would knock out the A turret. Another ‘4’ on the same ship would knock out the B turret on the four-turret ship, while inflicting secondary or tertiary damage on the three-turret ship.

Historically, navies moved towards three triples over time, some navies going faster than others. This is contrary to the advantages in GQIII, which therefore appears to be ahistorical in this respect.

Two things regarding this discussion:[ol][li]This is contrary to what I have read regarding the difficulties associated with three guns firing in one turret, and the dispersion of fire, which was considered to be greater with triple turrets (see Lonnie's earlier post).[/li][li]Further, if all this leaves you unconvinced, either roll d24’s for every gun tube, or simply round up for all odd guns. It will be simpler, since you do the same for all turrets, not just single-gun. So the dice comparison for the two ship types would be:[ul]four twin turrets: 4, 3, 2, 1three triples: 5, 3, 2[/ul][/li][/ol]Hope this helps.Cheers,Gregory

[William MacGillivray]

lonnie wrote:

One D12 per pair of main battery guns gives the right probability spread and also emulates one per turret for many ships. You'll note that approach was taken for secondary and tertiary armament where it's one die per box (representing two guns).

I just want to get something confirmed about this.There are a handfull of ships with secondaries in triple turrets (e.g. Yamato & Litorio). This is shown on the ship charts.These do use the 1 D12 per 2 barrels rule, rather than the 1 D12 per secondary mount version, don't they?

[Cpt M]

BillMcGill wrote:

There are a handfull of ships with secondaries in triple turrets (e.g. Yamato & Litorio). This is shown on the ship charts.These do use the 1 D12 per 2 barrels rule, rather than the 1 D12 per secondary mount version, don't they?

Yes, these triple secondary turrets would use the same 1 d12 per 2 barrels rule. (The "regular" secondary mounts on the ship logs are all twins so the 1 d12 per mount works out to be 1 d12 per 2 barrels).