30 replies to this topic

[Radek Gozdek]

DD Mogador (9HB ) and CL Emile Bertin (6HB ) try to evade for RN CA Norfolk and Suffolk. Each of ten receive 4 8” straddles. After Equivalent table calculation, CL receive 6 hits, and DD 8 hits. Two times bigger and armored CL was sunk, DD not! The same as 2 straddles of 15”!Solutions – EQ Hits for DD should be al least 2 time bigger than for CA-CL.CL Nagara receive FP hit and burning. Unlucky repair fix attempt made 5 of 6 hull box destroyed, fire is still burning. Wrack? No – still can use all 7 guns and 8 torpedoes as undamaged. Also torpedoes can be reload!Solutions – Fire should destroy unarmored weapon on the board first.BB Iowa was arounded by four japs DD. Can use all secondary guns? Have 4 DCT for it, but no – rules say “only one target”.Solutions – two secondary armament’s DCT for each main DCT.CA Admiral Graff Spee receive 1 hit to destroy one main gun mount. Still have second one. Her power was halved? No – was 2/3 less – from three to one dice!Solutions – use even or odd numbers of deices depending on even/odd turn. At 7 and 9 turn use 1 dice, at 6 and 8 – 2 dices.Another solutions after several battles:To Equivalent table add long lances and torpex columns for japs and US navyTo torpedo damage add BA aerial hits columns, also one sunk effects for DD columns should be 7 hulls + Eng (now 1000t or 3000t DD has similar effect)For several Fires or Bulkheads should be only one hull box lost per turn.

[Cpt M]

"DD Mogador (9HB ) and CL Emile Bertin (6HB ) try to evade for RN CA Norfolk and Suffolk. Each of ten receive 4 8” straddles. After Equivalent table calculation, CL receive 6 hits, and DD 8 hits. Two times bigger and armored CL was sunk, DD not! The same as 2 straddles of 15”!Solutions – EQ Hits for DD should be al least 2 time bigger than for CA-CL."First, your example is a little unbalanced since you're using two ships which represent the extremes of their respective classes. The Emile Bertin (5886t standard) with next to no armor (no belt armor and minimal deck armor) is close to being one the lightest, smallest cruisers on record while the Mogador (2884t standard) is the biggest of the French super-destroyers and outsizes every other DD built before or during WWII. So, given the above, your results are not unusual. The key element here is the Equivalent Hits Table and how it translates gunfire damage to the various ship classes.

[Cpt M]

(continued from last message)The intent is to have the damage inflicted be proportional to the type of target. At the bottom of this is the fact that damage effects different types of ships in different ways due to differences in their basic design and construction. According to one analysis of the damage inflicted on ships during the Solomons campaign, it was determined that DDs could absorb massive amounts of damage and still remain functional. The paradox was that their lighter construction allowed them to take hits that would have crippled their larger brethren. The same is apparent in the battle off Samar. The values used in the Equivalent Hits table were developed after much playtest with the goal being to produce results in line with the real world results. Many values were tested and retested.Now, in your example, most DDs (dare I say, all except the French super destroyers) would have been sunk outright while the normal CL (with some level of armor) would have survived. So, the table as written does perform well. "CL Nagara receive FP hit and burning. Unlucky repair fix attempt made 5 of 6 hull box destroyed, fire is still burning. Wrack? No – still can use all 7 guns and 8 torpedoes as undamaged. Also torpedoes can be reload!Solutions – Fire should destroy unarmored weapon on the board first."If I accept your premise, then all shipboard fires must occur above deck. Unfortunately, that is not borne out by the facts on the ground. An uncontrolled and spreading fire in the steering compartment is unlikely to impact a gun mount 3 decks above. But if that fire spreads to the engine room and beyond, then the ship effectively is 'sunk' (in spirit, if not in fact; although that may follow shortly!) and may never touch the main deck. Consequently, I can't see changing the current rule."BB Iowa was arounded by four japs DD. Can use all secondary guns? Have 4 DCT for it, but no – rules say “only one target”.Solutions – two secondary armament’s DCT for each main DCT."In the interest of simplicity, the rules assume 1 unmarked DCT for each side of the secondary battery. The level of detail regarding identified DCTs only goes down to the main batteries. If you feel the need to include such detail in your own games, feel free to do so. But regarding your "2 secondary DCTs per main DCT" rule: this is as much a simplification as what the rules provides and is not based in the facts. While the modern US BBs did have 4 secondary DCTs, this definitely does not apply to all BBs, BCs, CAs and CLs. If you're going to include secondary DCTs, then you'll need to do the necessary research to get them right. And that information is not easy to come by.In your example, Iowa can engage 1 DD each with its port and starboard secondaries, and 1 each with its fore and aft mains. "CA Admiral Graff Spee receive 1 hit to destroy one main gun mount. Still have second one. Her power was halved? No – was 2/3 less – from three to one dice!Solutions – use even or odd numbers of deices depending on even/odd turn. At 7 and 9 turn use 1 dice, at 6 and 8 – 2 dices."The foundation of the '1 die per 2 tubes' and its impact on twin vs triple turrets has been discussed elsewhere on the forum; a review of those discussions might be beneficial. Your solution is interesting, but it will be difficult to apply and may have some unintended consequences. Given the current results are not outside the historical results, I don't see the need for a change."To Equivalent table add long lances and torpex columns for japs and US navy"The Torpex warheads (used by the RN as well as the USN post 1943) are covered in the Optional Rules 1.14.11.As to the Japanese Type 93, Model 1 (aka 'Long Lance'). Gamers seem to give mythic abilities to this torpedo, often in excess of its actual capabilities. That being said, current research have brought about a more balanced view. For example, while it did have a large warhead (1080lbs of Tyoe 97 explosive for the Mod 1), it was only 25% and 33% larger than the US Mk 15 (825lbs TNT) and UK Mark IX (750lbs TNT) 21" torpedoes. Given that the increase in explosive force is not proportional to the increase in the size of the charge (a general rule of thumb is increasing the charge by half increases the explosive force by a third), the net difference in effect for the Type 93 would be in the range of 16% to 20% (if that much). Given the limitations of the table, even 20% would not qualify as significant enough to justify its own qualifier. BUT... Where the Type 93 does excel is its speed and range performance. Its substantially higher performance (48-50ks for 21900yds), coupled with a better doctrine for the use of torpedoes, made it far more effective in combat. "also one sunk effects for DD columns should be 7 hulls + Eng (now 1000t or 3000t DD has similar effect)"Changing a 'Sunk' result for a '7 Hulls + Eng' doesnt seem necessary since for the majority of DDs this will still result in a sunk result. Also, it doesn't square with the post-war analysis of torpedo hits on DDs. According to analysis done by the USN, damage to DDs fell in two categories: seriously or severely damaged (but still afloat) or sunk. Most of the survivors were hit in either the extreme bow or stern; hits to the midships usually resulted in sinking the ship. The results as written do reflect this while the suggested change doesn't seem to fit the post-war analysis. "For several Fires or Bulkheads should be only one hull box lost per turn." So if I get another fire or bulkhead hit, the damage incurred is half and the damage from the first fire or bulkhead hit also drops to half? Hmmmm.... According to my reading of the rules, additional fires/bulkhead hits are just that, additional. They're suppose to ADD to your damage control headaches. This modification would dramatically change the basic damage model (and not positively). And, finally, about the 'Unhistorical effects of GQ3 rules' title: This seems a bit harsh, even more so given that none of your objections come supported by any evidence. In contrast, for the resources consulted in the design of this game, I suggest you give a look at the bibliography.

[Radek Gozdek]

Coastal wrote:

First, your example is a little unbalanced The key element here is the Equivalent Hits Table and how it translates gunfire damage to the various ship classes.

of course, but switch her with Dido or Leander class, all German and japan CL - also 6 hull boxex.My example show that you have unhistorical Equivalent ratio, that working for all DD making it harder to sunk that cruisers.Coastal wrote:

I suggest you give a look at the bibliography ...

I know history of Solomons campaign, and especially USS San Francisco was a good example :P You compare Yugumo and Jinstsu, Nurnberg and Leberecht Maas - in GQ3 the same level of artillety resistance ...British after sinking 10 German DD at Narvik had different opinionCoastal wrote:

An uncontrolled and spreading fire in the steering compartment is unlikely to impact a gun mount 3 decks above.

Especially on DD or CL :P Give me a only one exanple heavy damaged ship by fire without fire bleow deck.Coastal wrote:

Gamers seem to give mythic abilities to this torpedo,

I'd counted 13 hits by one long lance. 11 DD, 2 CL. 2 CL and 7 DD was sunk, 2 DD was scuttles, only 2 DD survived ...Mythic abilities had torpex.

[Radek Gozdek]

Another very good example - BB Srasbourg and BC Dunkerque. 8" shell at 20000y can't ppenetrate both BC and BB armor, but can sunk Dunkiergue, but Srasbourg not.Solutions - delete BC EH row, instead special remarks to old BC if was more vulnerable on hits. Ex Hiei - 15" and bigger shells additional 1/2 hits.Sometimes calculations was better than test. Example - is better to hit by fire 4 simple torpedoes than one 4 torpedoes spread. 10% difference.I don't count all combination, only that one for Japan, but simply program can do it

[Jim O'Neil]

Strasbourg and Dunkerque are not armored to the same level...The armor on the later Strasbourg is a good bit thicker.

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

DD Mogador (9HB ) and CL Emile Bertin (6HB ) try to evade for RN CA Norfolk and Suffolk. Each of ten receive 4 8” straddles. After Equivalent table calculation, CL receive 6 hits, and DD 8 hits. Two times bigger and armored CL was sunk, DD not! The same as 2 straddles of 15”!Solutions – EQ Hits for DD should be al least 2 time bigger than for CA-CL.

There is no problem here, as stated by Coastal. You are using hull boxes for different class ships as equivalent to each other across classes. Light cruisers were often very vulnerable ships despite their tonnage, and your focusing on the most extreme examples of class does not show anything but the strength of the system in modeling the effects of gunfire and damage.Have a look at the Bonus Documents for an explanation of hull boxes and their calculation.

CL Nagara receive FP hit and burning. Unlucky repair fix attempt made 5 of 6 hull box destroyed, fire is still burning. Wrack? No – still can use all 7 guns and 8 torpedoes as undamaged. Also torpedoes can be reload!Solutions – Fire should destroy unarmored weapon on the board first.

Again, you are taking a rare situation and attempting to derive a general rule. Though unlikely, there were instances of ships firing their guns as they sank beneath the waves. This would be one of them.Furthermore, you seem to say hits against specific locations knock them out, but fires must cause damage to all these locations before it can affect the structural integrity of the ship. This is quite wrong, for damage from both fires and from flooding.If you wish more varied fire (conflagration) effects, roll on the Gunfire Damage table each time a fire damage control roll is failed, and apply the result. Your method is far too deterministic, as Coastal points out in his example.In general, for overall effect in the game, the current RAW method works well.

BB Iowa was arounded by four japs DD. Can use all secondary guns? Have 4 DCT for it, but no – rules say “only one target”.Solutions – two secondary armament’s DCT for each main DCT.

Your method does not take into consideration the manner in which ships fought. It was normal to handle the nearest threat first, especially in regard to secondary batteries. Your example presupposes a level of fire control coordination that that would have been difficult for any ship to achieve in the confusion of battle. Just because there were four DCT’s does not mean they all could or would act independently.Question: how did Iowa get surrounded by four DD’s?

CA Admiral Graff Spee receive 1 hit to destroy one main gun mount. Still have second one. Her power was halved? No – was 2/3 less – from three to one dice!Solutions – use even or odd numbers of deices depending on even/odd turn. At 7 and 9 turn use 1 dice, at 6 and 8 – 2 dices.

The idea you propose is complicated, and likely to slow play. Since slowing the game is unrealistic, the new rule would have to have extraordinary utility. This has been previously discussed here regarding triple-gunned turrets. It appears rounding down is appropriate.

Another solutions after several battles:To Equivalent table add long lances and torpex columns for japs and US navy

Coastal pointed you to the optional rule already included in the game for Torpex equipped warheads. His comments about the Japanese Type 93 are bang on, and this topic has been previously discussed here. Also note that there is a slight increase in the number of hits caused by the Type 93 on the Japanese Mine & Torpedo Damage table versus other navies’ torpedoes. The rules portray torpedo damage admirably.

To torpedo damage add BA aerial hits columns,

This is something I have noted, and if you wish a solution, simply subtract -1 hull hit (3 = 2, 2 = 1, 1 = ½).

…also one sunk effects for DD columns should be 7 hulls + Eng (now 1000t or 3000t DD has similar effect).

Coastal explained this very well. Also, your comment seems contrary to your complaints above about the survivability of DD’s.

For several Fires or Bulkheads should be only one hull box lost per turn.

Coastal well-described the problem with your idea. Furthermore, GQ does not have qualitative levels of flooding or fire damage. The way severe damage is represented is by having several flooding or fire results at once.Cheers,Gregory

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

Coastal wrote:

First, your example is a little unbalanced The key element here is the Equivalent Hits Table and how it translates gunfire damage to the various ship classes.

of course, but switch her with Dido or Leander class, all German and japan CL - also 6 hull boxex.My example show that you have unhistorical Equivalent ratio, that working for all DD making it harder to sunk that cruisers.

I do not know exactly what your example shows, but I wonder how six hits on a CL sinks it, while eight hits on a DD is not enough. The Gunfire Damage table determines what damage is taken and where. Against larger calibre guns, the difference between the ships becomes less important, as shells will penetrate both for damage.Your contention that "Two times bigger and armored" is enough to require a differentiation is inaccurate. Large commercial ships are sunk relatively easily due to the fact that they do not have the same structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization. Tonnage and armor are not the only measures of a ship's capacity to take damage. It is best to avoid these types of straight comparisons between classes, since they tend to fall apart under closer inspection.

Coastal wrote:

I suggest you give a look at the bibliography ...

I know history of Solomons campaign, and especially USS San Francisco was a good example :P You compare Yugumo and Jinstsu, Nurnberg and Leberecht Maas - in GQ3 the same level of artillety resistance ...British after sinking 10 German DD at Narvik had different opinion

Okay, you lost me. What is your point?

Coastal wrote:

An uncontrolled and spreading fire in the steering compartment is unlikely to impact a gun mount 3 decks above.

Especially on DD or CL :P Give me a only one exanple heavy damaged ship by fire without fire bleow deck.

Are you suggesting that the conflagration was necessarily below decks to disable or heavily damage a ship?

Coastal wrote:

Gamers seem to give mythic abilities to this torpedo,

I'd counted 13 hits by one long lance. 11 DD, 2 CL. 2 CL and 7 DD was sunk, 2 DD was scuttles, only 2 DD survived ...Mythic abilities had torpex.

Counted where? To what are you referring?Gregory

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

Another very good example - BB Srasbourg and BC Dunkerque. 8" shell at 20000y can't ppenetrate both BC and BB armor, but can sunk Dunkiergue, but Srasbourg not.Solutions - delete BC EH row, instead special remarks to old BC if was more vulnerable on hits. Ex Hiei - 15" and bigger shells additional 1/2 hits.

I see no reason why that is preferable to the method currently used. In the case you cite, your change would mean the shells would not penetrate either ship.

Sometimes calculations was better than test. Example - is better to hit by fire 4 simple torpedoes than one 4 torpedoes spread. 10% difference.I don't count all combination, only that one for Japan, but simply program can do it

Statistically this is so only for the IJN, but you cannot fire four one-torpedo spreads from one ship vice one four-torpedo spread. If you fired from four different ships, you would have to determine solutions for all the ships, with the likelihood that one or more of them might not even hit the target.In a previous post, you opined there should be a separate table for "long lances" [sic]. Now are you suggesting a change is needed for the IJN, due to their slightly better accuracy with one torpedo? I am not sure I understand why, nor do I understand your several "solutions" that seem to involve more complexity and one-off, single-purpose rules. A lot of time and effort has gone into making General Quarters an accurate and playable game. Like any rules, it works as a whole, and the results are hardly unhistorical. One thing is certain — the law of unintended consequences holds that actions always have effects that are unanticipated or "unintended." This is very important when radical or even moderate changes are made to a system.However, remember it is your game. If you want to change some values, rules, or anything else, go ahead!Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

yes - GQ3 is e playably game. By ALL my shiplover's friend told that unhistorical, and don't play. Simple? For me yes."but I wonder how six hits on a CL sinks it, while eight hits on a DD is not enough"I wrote - 4 straddle of 8" gun - x 1,5 for CL = 6 hullbox lost, x 2 for DD = 8 hullbox lost.gregoryk - you wrote "same structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization. Tonnage and armor are not the only measures of a ship's capacity to take damage."and also"In the case you cite, your change would mean the shells would not penetrate either ship." about BB Srasbourg and BC Dunkerque.There are the same structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization. Main difference was armor, but stong enough on both ships against 8" (bravo6!). Problem is that one of the same ship may by sunk by 8", another - not. Unhistorical.The best test for each rule are rare and extreme situation. God rule pass even it, bad - no. This is a point for my examples. It's no point than Mogador is better than Emile Bertin, but ALL DD was disproportionate better than ALL CL and CA!I agree with you - you have a good, playable game with small nubers of faults, very easy to fix. But not historical now, only semi-historical.I know hull boxes calculations. simply 1 DD's ton = 5 crusier's ton. 5x less. Also, usualy cruisers had better structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization than DD. And if you wrote that now you rules work OK, each realy shiplover bursting out laughing. Sad, but true ...Of course, I have my home rules. I want to help to correct in simple way some problems. You can ise it or not. But I lost hope. Eech turn i wrote movments durinf 1-2 minutes. 1 second look at turn numbers slow play? Realy? If you treat 350mm tappered to 170 mm Sharnhorst armour as BB because was tappered, and the same 305mm tappered to 168mm armour of USS Washington not, wrote that cruiser are more vulnerable then DD - you are simply not credible.

[Cpt M]

"of course, but switch her with Dido or Leander class, all German and japan CL - also 6 hull boxex.My example show that you have unhistorical Equivalent ratio, that working for all DD making it harder to sunk that cruisers."Well, all I can suggest is referring back to the prior messages in this thread. Admittedly, the concept can be a little difficult to grasp. But the values used in the table were arrived at after extensive playtesting and the results are consistent with known real world damage results.

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

yes - GQ3 is e playably game. By ALL my shiplover's friend told that unhistorical, and don't play. Simple? For me yes."but I wonder how six hits on a CL sinks it, while eight hits on a DD is not enough"I wrote - 4 straddle of 8" gun - x 1,5 for CL = 6 hullbox lost, x 2 for DD = 8 hullbox lost.

You roll to determine damage — it is not automatically hull boxes. In the case of a large calibre salvo that penetrates armor, any ship will be at risk, and its design integrity will determine if it survives. Certainly if you feel that there is a shortage of hull boxes on CL's and/or too many on DD's, change it to fit your expectations.

gregoryk - you wrote "same structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization. Tonnage and armor are not the only measures of a ship's capacity to take damage."and also"In the case you cite, your change would mean the shells would not penetrate either ship." about BB Srasbourg and BC Dunkerque.There are the same structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization. Main difference was armor, but stong enough on both ships against 8" (bravo6!). Problem is that one of the same ship may by sunk by 8", another - not. Unhistorical.

Bravo6: "Strasbourg and Dunkerque are not armored to the same level...The armor on the later Strasbourg is a good bit thicker." That is why at certain ranges 8" guns can penetrate Dunkerque's armor and not Strasbourg's.

The best test for each rule are rare and extreme situation. God rule pass even it, bad - no. This is a point for my examples. It's no point than Mogador is better than Emile Bertin, but ALL DD was disproportionate better than ALL CL and CA!

No, in fact the rarer and more extreme the examples, the more likely that any system will fail. If you try to force a game into covering every possible event, you more often skew the normal range.In any case, numerous folks have presented the research and background into why design decisions were made. We feel the game does model naval combat well, at a level of detail that both covers all necessary events and allows gamers to command and make decisions for several ships. It is neither simplistic, nor hyper-detailed to the point of unplayability.

I agree with you - you have a good, playable game with small nubers of faults, very easy to fix. But not historical now, only semi-historical.

I understand your views, and know they are not universally shared.

I know hull boxes calculations. simply 1 DD's ton = 5 crusier's ton. 5x less. Also, usualy cruisers had better structural integrity and watertight compartmentalization than DD. And if you wrote that now you rules work OK, each realy shiplover bursting out laughing. Sad, but true ...Of course, I have my home rules. I want to help to correct in simple way some problems. You can ise it or not. But I lost hope. Eech turn i wrote movments durinf 1-2 minutes. 1 second look at turn numbers slow play? Realy? If you treat 350mm tappered to 170 mm Sharnhorst armour as BB because was tappered, and the same 305mm tappered to 168mm armour of USS Washington not, wrote that cruiser are more vulnerable then DD - you are simply not credible.

You and your naval wargaming companions can and should adjust the system to suit your views. GQIII was not designed in a vacuum. Rather, it is the result of synthesizing years of research into a playable, accurate game. We and many others find it works. If you do not, adjust it to fit your expectations.You seem bent on rejecting our explanations, which of course is your prerogative. I must admit, however, that I find your derisive comments to be tedious. So it is time to let others weigh in. Fair winds,Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

Coastal wrote:

and the results are consistent with known real world damage results.

USS San Francisco? gregoryk wrote:

The armor on the later Strasbourg is a good bit thicker." That is why at certain ranges 8" guns can penetrate Dunkerque's armor and not Strasbourg's.

8" can penetrate BC armor only on 24000-30000y. The longest hit at WW2 was 24500y.At 0-24000y similiar ship has totally different resistance. All or Nothing as an armor system :laugh: gregoryk wrote:

it is not automatically hull boxes

I know. But it change nothing. You don't see it, but i have no time to explain it.

[gregoryk]

I waited to reply, since this thread's title and content can be interpreted as provocative. I hope my post resolves this particular discussion.ragozd wrote:

Coastal wrote:

and the results are consistent with known real world damage results.

USS San Francisco?

Picking one example to disprove an entire system is a very common but fallacious method of arguing. In any case, I am not sure what you are trying to prove.ragozd wrote:

gregoryk wrote:

The armor on the later Strasbourg is a good bit thicker." That is why at certain ranges 8" guns can penetrate Dunkerque's armor and not Strasbourg's.

8" can penetrate BC armor only on 24000-30000y. The longest hit at WW2 was 24500y.At 0-24000y similar ship has totally different resistance. All or Nothing as an armor system :laugh:

You seem to misunderstand how armor works. The armored areas have protection, and it can and often does vary for turrets (there are three ratings for Dunkerque and Strasbourg). If an unprotected area is hit, it takes damage. A hull hit that does not penetrate still inflicts ½ hull box. It is not "all or nothing."ragozd wrote:

gregoryk wrote:

it is not automatically hull boxes

I know. But it change nothing. You don't see it, but i have no time to explain it.

There does not seem to be anything to explain. In previous threads, you have expressed a desire for certain results to occur or be possible. Claiming that the failure of the game to realize these results is not evidence of GQ's ahistorical nature, since yours is usually a minority view — in some cases, a minority of one. Further, some of the inclusions you have asked for are already present in either the basic or optional rules. A closer and more open-minded reading of the text may help answer some of your questions.As I and others have stated repeatedly, if you want something different to occur, change the values, procedures, rules, ratings, etc, to your heart's and brain's content. It is your game. The published design represents decades of research by Lonnie Gill and his design team, with review by several playtest groups and knowledgeable individuals. Disagreement is fine, and encouraged. Dismissal of their work is neither productive nor fair.Cheers,Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

If misunderstand, rather Equivalent Hits. 8" for BB is nothing. Can't destroy eaven 1/10 hull box. This is a problem for Strasbourg/Dunkerque...

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

If misunderstand, rather Equivalent Hits. 8" for BB is nothing. Can't destroy eaven 1/10 hull box. This is a problem for Strasbourg/Dunkerque...

A change to the rules will allow "C•S•T" hits on these areas, which are Critical, Secondary, and Tertiary hits. Damage upperworks, knock out secondary systems, sure — but significant sinking damage is not going to happen.However, you are correct, 8" guns — cruiser fire — will not sink a battleship. Did not happen then, and will not happen in the game. No amount of wishing for magic bullets will change the ballistics data, and the empirical/historical facts we have to support it. We have been through this discussion before in an earlier thread regarding Scharnhorst. The evidence from numerous sources validates GQ's conclusions. If you do not agree, then change the game tables to match your view.Gregory

[Radek Gozdek]

But I still told about hull damage... CST don't hurt hull box. At second, 8" shell had totally different penetrations as in GQ3,at 11 000y US gun could penetrate 250mm belt, (BC) and had ... CA in GQ3. also 13" Dunkierque gun had penetration 340mm belt at 25 000y (should be BA in GQ3, is BC...)http://www.navweaps....13-50_m1931.htm A lot od penetrations in GQ3 is too small.You have a nice and simply engine with a lot of small but onerous errors. You lost clients who know that 8" shell can penetrate Kirishima armor at 12 000y. I'm very surprised taht evidently unhistorical errosr you shifting onto customer correction, defending trash rules and data ...I'll finish historical penetration in the course of a week, and, if you want, can send you. Also suggest add 3000y row - now you have no penetration data at this range (at night will be useful).

[Cpt M]

"But I still told about hull damage... CST don't hurt hull box."This issue has been thoroughly thrashed in previous threads and really doesn't merit further discussion. No 8" round was capable of damaging the armored citadel of a battleship armored to the level of BB. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of historical evidence to the contrary. "At second, 8" shell had totally different penetrations as in GQ3,at 11 000y US gun could penetrate 250mm belt, (BC) and had ... CA in GQ3.also 13" Dunkierque gun had penetration 340mm belt at 25 000y (should be BA in GQ3, is BC...)A lot od penetrations in GQ3 is too small."True, when compared to the theoretical and proving ground data, the tables will have a lower penetration value. But they're SUPPOSED to. As pointed out by Lonnie in a prior posting, theoretical/proving ground data cannot be directly translated into real world combat situations. Theoretical/proving ground data, while useful for comparing the relative performance of guns, do not take into account the real conditions of a shell striking a target that is constantly in motion (in all three axes) relative to the shell's path. Consequently, a certain discounting of the raw theoretical penetration values has been made to account for real world combat conditions. These were then proofed through extensive playtest and subsequently adjusted, where needed, and then extensively playtested again, until the results matched reasonable historical outcomes. "You have a nice and simply engine with a lot of small but onerous errors. You lost clients who know that 8" shell can penetrate Kirishima armor at 12 000y. I'm very surprised taht evidently unhistorical errosr you shifting onto customer correction, defending trash rules and data ..."I'm not going to rehash the 8" argument here, except to mention some results from gaming. Lately, my local group have been running an awful lot of Solomons battles and have had several actions involving US 8" gunned CAs verses Kongo class BCs. All of the battle results were consistent with the known historical outcomes; the CAs got knocked to shreds and the BC was seriously damaged, so much so, that she would probably not survive the following day when the Cactus Air Force comes out to play. If we were to use your suggestions, the results would have been skewed wildly in favor of the US; far in excess of any reasonable historical outcome. THIS is proof enough of the rules validity for me.Finally, these "trash" rules were not concocted over a three day weekend. Hardly. They're the result of 30+ years of extensive research (going back to before GQI), developed over a period of 10+ years (probably closer to 20; I don't know the exact timeline) and playtested for just as long. There have been multiple groups involved in the playtest with ideas raised, tested and rejected, modified or accepted unchanged. In my opinion (and I've only been reading navy history for 40+ years and playing naval games of some sort for at least 35 years), the rules, as they stand, produce solid, acceptable, historically accurate results. If you disagree (and reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements) with elements of the game, then I suggest, for your own gaming, you make whatever adjustments you feel meet with your interpretation of the evidence (I haven't met a gamer yet who doesn't change something in a set of rules!).

[Jim O'Neil]

For informations sake... The Battle of Guadalcanal with Admiral Callaghan's ships and HIEI among other Japanese ships was fought well inside 12,000 Yards. SAN FRANCISCO computed the closest minmum range to HIEI at 2,500 yards. The 'effective' proving ground penetration was about 14" at that range... but the Japanese say only a few shells penetrated.Hiei was in sailing condition with all leaks and fires under control when she was scuttled, and the only reason was a rudder hit that prevented her escape. Hiei's rudder was not in a heavily armored location, so it was a lucky hit, not short range 8" gun effectiveness that doomed her. The Cost was exorbitant in ships and lives.

[Bob Benge]

Having read this thread with interest over the course of the past week I would like to throw in my 2 cents.I don't foresee a reason to change anything in the rules or stats as published. A vast majority of the games owners have not had any issues with what has been mentioned here. The few instances noted in other threads in this vein have been either corrected or explained with more than satisfactory explanations to the players liking and understanding. I will emphasize that Lonnie, the design team and all of the playtest teams that participated made a tremendous effort to provide a highly playable yet historically accurate game system. As with all game systems, people will disagree with them. "Grognards" have a tendency to pick at issues they believe are not historically accurate based their beliefs of the history and backed up by instances found in the occasional book or website. While these instances may or may not be accurate, they do not address the overall issue of game design. I have seen this issue come up in the development of Mein Panzer in the past and am all too familiar with it. A notable example of this was on how unbelievable it was that a Churchill could kill a Panther at range was thrown in my face as "historically impossible," yet, it is entirely possible given the right circumstances; and yes it factually did happen, many times. Yet the perception is that the myths (the erroneous beliefs of an individual) outweigh the facts or game design for some. Lonnie's precepts that Proving Ground data is overrated are entirely correct. A fully stabilized gun using precisely machined shells fired at a non-moving armored plate at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the gun will yield the best possible results. Will these results be proven in combat? No. Unlike tank games, naval games have to account for 3 dimensional movement, a wider variance of wind and weather conditions, longer ranges, mass produced shells, and bigger guns. All of these have a great impact on shell trajectory and penetration. If you think I am wrong then it is time to go back to physics class and naval gunnery school. Just the single fact that a target is rolling and moving at sea is enough to change the angle at which a shell hits and penetrates ships armor. This is definitely not the same as the proving grounds is it? As to the point of “You lost clients who know that 8" shell can penetrate Kirishima armor at 12 000y,” suffice it to say that if ODGW lost patrons because of a disagreement in how an 8" shell penetrates armor then we will chalk it up as an "Oh well." No wargame designer can please everyone and if they try to then more often than not the game ends up being bad. ODGW has always said that the games are a framework for the gamer to mold his playing style to. If the person likes the game system in general but disagrees with parts of it then simply change it to meet your expectations. If a person wants to share these changes with others, then we strongly encourage the posting of House Rules so that other gamers can review and/or try out these changes to see if they meet their gaming style as well. We also encourage the posting of possible errata with our games and if valid errors are found we will correct them provided that they are determined to be playable, legitimate, factual and are within the framework of the design of the author of the game system.“I'm very surprised that evidently unhistorical errors you shifting onto customer correction, defending trash rules and data ...” The “trash rules" comment is totally inappropriate IMO, especially since you pointed out earlier that “yes - GQ3 is a playable game.” The gentlemen are not “shifting on to the customer” as you say, they simply have pointed out, with quite a lot of Historical Data, that the issues you have put forth are not based on historical data. Historical data and proving ground data are not the same and the facts cannot be based solely on proving ground data as has been attempted to do so.Finally, and this is strictly my opinion and not ODGW’s as a company in any way, shape or form, the title of this thread, “Unhistorical effects of GQ3 rules,” while being possibly a language/translations issue and not meant to bash the rules system, is totally unfair to the rules system. I believe a better title could have been used that would more accurately convey the issues put forth. We are all here to ultimately have fun, enjoy the game and occasionally discuss possible issues with the game so let’s leave these types of comments out and discuss the issues reasonably and with tact.These gentlemen have gone over all aspects of the game and I believe that they deserve critical acclaim for the amount of time (30 plus years) and effort they have put into the game to maintain such a high degree or realism while maintaining the ease of playability of the game. Ragozd, we would be pleased if you would post your historical penetration data and please note a bibliography with it so that the data has validity that can be verified. I would recommend reviewing the GQIII bibliography also as a great source of info. ;)Is there any comments on adding a 3,000 yard row to the sheets?That's my 2 cents... well, maybe a quarter now. :)