Jump to content


Photo

Unhistorical effects of GQ3 rules


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 William MacGillivray

William MacGillivray

    Private

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 August 2007 - 02:39 PM

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...gregoryk wrote:A change to the rules will allow "CST" 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.ragozd wrote:But I still told about hull damage... CST don't hurt hull box.Coastal wrote: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.

Sorry for raking this up again, but I think you are all missing the point that ragozd is tryin to make. It is not that 8" rounds should be capable of sinking a BB. What he seems to be saying (and I have to agree with him) is that it is unreasonable that in the case of the sister-ships Strasbourg & Dunkerque (which would presumably have the same or very similar structural strength, even if the belt armour on one was thicker that the other, according to references I don't have access to) the game allows non-penetrating 8" to damage the hull structure of one but not the other. Surely in this case a non-penetrating hit would have similar effects on both ships.I understand the reasoning and need for the rule, and the "C.S.T" rule, I just think there are are too many cases in the 8"-BC/BB and 4"-CS/CL areas where it does make certain vessels too invulnereable.But then, I have never been comfortable with the idea that any non-penetrating hull hits can sink a ship (given enough such hits).Bill

#22 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 21 August 2007 - 07:49 AM

On my rather long "want to do" list is to play the first night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. And I'm perfectly willing to play the US BTW. With GQ3's gunnery damage tables, which at short range has the maximum penetration of 8" guns BD, it's difficult to see how the game will allow the US to perform as they did historically - specifically rendering Hiei helpless. The only way I can see is to play with Optional Rule 1.6.5 Crossing the T, which will give the US a chance to penetrate the BCs armor.

#23 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 21 August 2007 - 10:09 PM

This particular subject has been pretty well discussed in previous postings, so I might suggest you reread the postings for the rationale behind the current rule. What I can say is that my local group has played and replayed several First Guadacanal type battles with the rules as written and pretty much reproduced the historical results. Just to test the idea, we ran a few games with he US 8" penetrating BC armor at close range (6000yds and below). This resulted in 3 US 8" CAs SINKING a Kongo class BC with gunfire ALONE. And we repeated the game twice to verify the results, and the same thing happened twice again. Based on this (and a reading of the historical record) we felt the modification skewed the damage results way beyond anything historical. I suggest you give the rules as written a try. It won't be easy (taking on a Kongo with CAs isn't suppose to be!), but, with good ship handling (and a bit of luck) you should give a good account of yourselves.

#24 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 23 August 2007 - 06:43 AM

Thanks BillMcGill. You exactly describe problem. In my version of rules (hard to say home rules beecause from GQ3 stayed only some ideas) I had 2 kinds of hullbox - armored and unarmored. Non-penetrable hits can't destroy armored parts.

#25 Steven Gilchrist

Steven Gilchrist

    Private

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 04:48 PM

If players will use the optional rule that allows a gun to penetrate one armor class higher, when "crossing the T" of an enemy ship, then the 8" guns of USA cruisers (or other cruisers) CAN penetrate BC armor if you "cross the BC's T". In a close battle , such as the First Guadalcanal Naval brawl, this can happen. And a few of the many hits on IJN Hiei in 1942 may have penetrated from a head or astern...Remember, just b4 WW1, battlecruisers were designed to hunt down armored cruisers. Heavey cruisers are the decendents of these armored cruisers.I thinnk that the GQ3 game system is awesome! I play mostly WW1, but have done some ww2 games,:cheer: (I think I am addicted):lol:

#26 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 05:09 PM

Glad you like the game! I had pretty much been put-off WWII naval until I came across GQ3. Now I game more WWII than WWI. IIRC, the hits on Hiei occurred while broadside on to the US CA line at less than 3000yds (which is VERY close range). The GQ3 Amendment 1 has new CRTs which adds an additional row for 3000yds and below. At this range, the 8" can penetrate BC armor. This modification to the original CRT was felt necessary for just the case you mentioned. (Have to admit that I've never used the 3000yds row; in the games I've played, the battlelines haven't gotten that close! Waaaay too close for my nerves!)

#27 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • ODGW Staff
  • 305 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:32 AM

Thanks for the kind words; glad you like it. Both the crossing the "T" optional rule and the Amendment 1 charts (which you can access in the Download section of the website) are designed for those unusual, but can/could happen situations. Amendment 1 is also an example of how we can work together to evolve the system to the benefit of all. I've just posted for comment an optional rule for concentration fire which will, no doubt, generate some controversy. Once we finalize it, it will be another useful enhancement.So, keep your guns manned; we've got some other things in work for you as well. LONNIE

#28 Steven Gilchrist

Steven Gilchrist

    Private

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 12 July 2008 - 03:24 PM

I like the revision allowing a ship with 8" Guns to penetrate BC armor at ranges of 3,000 yds & less. If a ship with 8"Guns 'crosses the T' of a ship with BB armor @ r

#29 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Late Update: As of Amendment 1 a 3000 yds range band was added (the original rules only went down to 6000 yds). This allows 8" guns to penetrate BC armor at the very extreme range of 3000yds.

#30 Aman

Aman

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:34 PM

I'm not a technical person - History degree, not physics and gunnery.

However, I think there area few things that need to be understood about a gunnery _table_ and its results in a game.

First, that a "hit" may or may not be ONE hit. It is merely "enough hits to gain the level of HIT in game terms".

Second, that the results of a HIT may have to do with physics, or they may have to do with that undefinable human factor. Some accounts say that the destruction of the Hiei's bridge was caused by close-fired small guns, causing a loss of command and control...perhaps a bit of panic? Also, that the incendiary rounds from the AA guns started many small fires, which while not affecting teh hull integrity (heck, most were probably a hundred feet above the hull!) still affect the ship in ways that may eventually result in the loss of Hull Boxes as the fires spread.

Third, we're fighting strictly Solomons, STrictly night, and working our way up the food chain as I have time to make the ship models in 1/700. Presently we're still in the DD/CL group, but we're already shooting at 1000y and had to worry about firing torpedoes too close to arm themselves (500y).

Another example of Human Factor coming into play...at the above mentioned Naval Battle of Guad'l, both the Sterett's biographer and Hara admit to firing a spread of torpedoes too close to arm, the Sterett crew claiming they heard the torps hit the Hiei but no explosion. Why? They were excited.

So the question is, does the game present valid ENOUGH technical data and other results to make players try to think like the commanders did then and emulate their tactics? Our experience thus far is that not only does it do it, but it does it while still being fun to play! And I was a convert to the system from another, simpler one, that simply didn't present enough of the technical concerns to make players try to fight like real commanders (name of rules withheld).

If you're friends won't play it b/c of a few results, then...get new gaming friends. My advice, and I have no connection with the company or authors.

Here in Philadelphia, I've got sailors, navy and army people playing with kids and naval gaming novices, and the game is on its own merits gaining a lot of popularity quickly. Perhaps I also present the game well, but the chart and rules speak for themselves, and so far even die-hard naval nuts like the balance of playability and technical challenge.

There are several sets of "rivet-counting" rules out there for you friends to indulge in, btw. Are they more "historical"? Perhaps if people fought the way rivet-counters count...

#31 Aman

Aman

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:45 PM

Oh, and one quick comment - Our original poster does not seem to speak English as his native language - altho I've no doubt that I speak his worse than he mine. A factor to consider is that people often seem rude when they speak colloquially in a foreigh language as the subtle nuances of word choice and proper situation for them may not match. Just a thought.

Finally, I can't resist asking why the French are even fighting in this wargame? Or were your two french ships fighting the two RN ships while tied up at a dock on the Med?

[I'm sorry, couldn't resist...I'm a bad person :( ]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users