15 replies to this topic

[Michal Koscielak]

The equivalent hits table has a "--" for many smaller calibre guns against heavily armored targets (up to more-or-less 8", depending on nationality), meaning no hits are scored.However, in my opinion this is a bit unrealistic. Small-calibre fire (say, 4.7" of a destroyer) could potentially do a lot of damage: damage floatplanes and catapults, wreck sensitive radar and wireless equipment (especially antennas), damage light AA guns, maybe injure or kill crewmen, finally it would have some effect on the crew morale, probably some other effects could be thought of.Such occurances would be rare, but in my opinion should be taken into account. My suggestion is that on the Equivalent hits table, the lowest possible result should be "1/2", meaning that even light guns can do a bit of harm to a battleship (and only a bit, since they won't penetrate armor). I have not playtested this yet, so for now this is just a suggestion. What do you think?

[Radek Gozdek]

see my proposition to house rule topic. broblem is bigger - US DD had max armour penetration CL - yes - can't penetrate CA!I have three solutions 1) addintional row for 3000y with 1 level bigger armour penetration2) additional 1/3 or 1/4 eqiuvalent hits 3) if ship haed all unarmored section destroyed should fled. That rule should be playtested, but well armoured ships receive a lot of hits at armoured parts, and that rule should work wery well

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

see my proposition to house rule topic. broblem is bigger - US DD had max armour penetration CL - yes - can't penetrate CA!I have three solutions 1) addintional row for 3000y with 1 level bigger armour penetration2) additional 1/3 or 1/4 eqiuvalent hits 3) if ship haed all unarmored section destroyed should fled. That rule should be playtested, but well armoured ships receive a lot of hits at armoured parts, and that rule should work wery well

ragozd,Go to the General Quarters House Rules to see a possible solution to your questions. Fyi, this is now an "official" optional rule in the new Royal Netherlands Navy supplement.Cheers,Gregory

[Cpt M]

One idea to this end is under the House Rules. The reason for limiting the effect of smaller guns on heavier targets is that such weapons were generally ineffective, and in reality, captains were loathe to expend their ammo load on such targets except in extreme circumstances. Wargamers, on the other hand, have no such compulsion and are forever looking for that magical, ultra low probability "Golden Bullet". That being said, the point you raise is valid and the above optional rule (which is also in the new Dutch supplement) does address this."3) if ship haed all unarmored section destroyed should fled. That rule should be playtested, but well armoured ships receive a lot of hits at armoured parts, and that rule should work wery well"While a valid idea, in the several years of playtest that I've been involved in, this situation has never really arisen. Generally, by the time a ship had lost all of its unarmored elements, its hull or main guns had invariably been already reduced to the point of causing a morale check, thus making this condition redundant.

[Radek Gozdek]

Gregoryk - OK - at first look that rules seems artificial, but should work well.

[Lonnie Gill]

ragozd,There's been a good deal of useful discussion on this subject area in the Forum topics on "damage modifiers" and "why bother with secondary battery armor" which you may find useful to see how this new optional rule evolved. We don't all agree, but there have been many good views posted here. I see this as a positive indication of the health of our hobby.In general, I have taken the position that small batteries seldom do appreciable damage or have sufficient penetration to have much effect on larger, armored targets. Since these attempts can consume enormous amounts of actual playing time as captains roll again and again for that "one in a million" result, I limited the ability to do this. That works well for the majority of engagements, but as several have pointed out, in specialized circumstances - like those in the November 1942 night battles - some capacity is needed. This optional rule attempts to provide this without encouraging a lot of meaningless and time consuming die rolling. Initial response has been good, and I have added it to the new Dutch GUNFIRE CRT. Barring receipt of negative feedback, I will later go back and update the other navies' charts with this option, which will then be available for download.You have also suggested some interesting options in your post to the House Rules. These go to the age-old trade off between detail and playability. I had limited the number of rows for armor penetration to maximum chart legibility and avoided the complexity of using 1/3 or 1/4 hits, etc. for the majority of players. Some will want the greater detail and find it worth the added math and complexity. Your optional rules provide them a vehicle to customize to suit their taste.

[Radek Gozdek]

We played scenario Scharnhorst's sinking. Your CST rules are insufficient.I'll stay with my additional 1/3 and 1/4 equivalent hits to damage half of hull box. After battle 2 RN cruisers was sunk, all destroyes used all of his torpedos and result: Radar damage on Sch by own fire.Duke can't make it in time ...

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

We played scenario Scharnhorst's sinking. Your CST rules are insufficient.I'll stay with my additional 1/3 and 1/4 equivalent hits to damage half of hull box. After battle 2 RN cruisers was sunk, all destroyes used all of his torpedos and result: Radar damage on Sch by own fire.Duke can't make it in time ...

I am not sure I understand. In the event, Scharnhorst only had her radar smashed and some other above decks damage by Force 1 until Force 2 with HMS Duke of York arrived. It was Konteradmiral Bey's decision to disengage historically, knowing that he was likely to be trapped, but the well-armored German Ship may very well have taken out the two Royal Navy cruisers of Force 1. In the event, over fifty torpedoes were fired at Scharnhorst by Force 2's RN cruisers and destroyers, and a Norwegian destroyer. They scored an estimated thirteen torpedo hits. However, these torpedo attacks did not occur until fire from Duke of York had already knocked out A turret and severed a steam line, slowing Scharnhorst to 10kts.If Force 1 was unable to stop Scharnhorst, that seems perfectly reasonable. Cheers,Gregory

[Cpt M]

Gotta agree with gregoryk on this one. I've played this scenario out multiple times with many different rules (GQ3, CaS, GQ1/2, Seekrieg IV and others) and the results have been pretty consistent. If Force 1 gets too close to Scharnhorst, it gets clobbered for no real return. If Scharnhorst gets caught by Force 2 with DoY, then it's lights out for the Germans. Your results are not that unusual. Remember, Force 1 has exactly 1 8" gun cruiser (and a weakly armored one, at that) and 2 6" gun cruisers (albeit, darn good ones) against a pretty heavily armored (if under gunned) ship. Given the matchup, it'd be surprising if they DID do anything of note to Scharnhorst (which is pretty much what actually happened).

[Radek Gozdek]

Please, try to imagine fight's results when Scharnhorst want to fight, not avoid. On GQ rules, simply sail to meet criuser because have immune of damage.Now I have the impression that you stay in complacency.

[Cpt M]

My point is that Scharnhorst would be, for all practical purposes, immune to damage from Force 1. If Scharnhorst decides to hang around and fight Force 1 (thereby allowing Force 2 to close with her), then its up to Force 1 to use their speed to keep the battle range as long as possible, even to the point of disengaging altogether and using their superior radar to shadow her. Norfolk, Belfast and Sheffield are not going to be able to inflict any real damage, no matter what set of rules you use. If the commander of Force 1 decides to fight it out, then the results (a lot of sunk cruisers) shouldn't be surprising.

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

Please, try to imagine fight's results when Scharnhorst want to fight, not avoid. On GQ rules, simply sail to meet criuser because have immune of damage.Now I have the impression that you stay in complacency.

Ragozd,It is too bad that the historical record, ship data, and the views of many naval historians and history buffs do not coincide with your vision of how the battle should proceed. The well-armored but under-gunned Scharnhorst is more than a match for the 6" guns of the two RN cruisers, and the under-armored Norfolk. "Complacent" or not, we will probably not alter the rules for a decidedly minority opinion. However, it is your game, so do as you see fit to have the game deliver results you want. One of the strengths of General Quarters is its adaptability. Enjoy!Cheers,Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

when player has no knowlege about that battle and only looking to ship data and rules - find only one tactics to fight Scharnhorst against any!!! nubers of cruisers - go ahead to clese combat use immune of damage.close combat means one cruiser out figt per turn.Scharnhorst - bridge (1 per 144 hits!) - does'n matter, fire control (1 per 144 hits!) - does'n matter,rudder jam (1 per 144 hits!) - only one result enable britsh to eliminate Scharnhorst.additional 6 hits for FP/plane = 9 hits per 144 working - for me = immune of damage.

[Michal Koscielak]

You seem to forget that a FP hit also results in a fire - get more than one of these and you're in serious trouble ;)

[gregoryk]

costi wrote:

You seem to forget that a FP hit also results in a fire - get more than one of these and you're in serious trouble ;)

Good point, and one I overlooked. Fires end the happy times for any ship!Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

yes - frogot especialy in line "additional 6 hits for FP/plane" :Pyou need 24 8" hits to make FP fire. After extinguish only 3 hits oer 144 are painful.