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
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 "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.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.
Unhistorical effects of GQ3 rules
Posted 15 August 2007 - 02:39 PM
Posted 21 August 2007 - 07:49 AM
Posted 21 August 2007 - 10:09 PM
Posted 23 August 2007 - 06:43 AM
Posted 04 July 2008 - 04:48 PM
Posted 04 July 2008 - 05:09 PM
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:32 AM
Posted 12 July 2008 - 03:24 PM
Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:54 PM
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:34 PM
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...
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:45 PM
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