14 replies to this topic

[Michael Gustavsson]

After playing couple of games I noticed that there is surprisingly few fires onboard ships due to damage during battle (a "1" rolled on the Gunfire Damage table for larger ships and none for DD´s). I reflected on this today when playing the "Cape Spada" battle, some of the British DD´s where really pounded by the Italian cruisers but still no fires broke out aboard the DD´s, very unrealistic IMHO. Maybe additional gunfire damage could result in a fire?Michael

[Cpt M]

In the game, fires are very big deals. These represent very intense and extensive conflagrations that, uncontrolled, lead to substantial damage to a ship's structural integrity (represented by the loss of hull boxes). Historically, such fires were rare and usually associated with some highly inflammable source, such as shipboard hangers or, in the case of the IJN, the torpedo tubes (the Japanese oxygen fueled torpedoes were notorious for causing intense fires when damaged). The more common fires (if as any fire can be call “common”!) which did not cause such damage (and were more easily controlled by damage control teams) are not represented in the game (their impact doesn’t rise to the level of causing major structural damage). Given the effect of fires in the game, increasing their number might seriously skew the damage results. I would be very hesitant to increase their number without a lot of playtesting.

[Michael Gustavsson]

Fires becomes more important during night battles. Maybe a rule where there is a "Fire" aboard a ship by visual means (Iluminated) after an "x" number of hits or, a die roll to check for a "fire" after reciving e.g turret, hullbox, TT mount or bridge hit on Gunfire Damage table. That "Fire" result will cause no significant damage but are present for visual determination only, something like that. There are lots of things flamable onboard ships, sloops and other equipment on deck will certainly be on fire after a few hits.

[Radek Gozdek]

mitte_70 - only one solution for you are home rules. ODGW after 30 years of testing decidad that all DD (except japan) are non-flammable ;)

[Cpt M]

Michael,Actually, your idea has some merit and you may want to playtest out some ideas. Just my take, but I'd keep the roll for a 'non-damaging fire' fairly low to account for damage control bringing such fires under control in a before it causes trouble (with a free damage control roll (over and above the roll already in the rules) to put the fire out and restrict it to, say, gun mount and TT hits. You would need some sort of bookkeeping to keep track of such fires (but that shouldn't be too much trouble). One thing to keep in mind, is the extra visibility due to this 'non-damaging fire', in some cases, may be somewhat moot. If a ship is receiving fire from the enemy, then it is already visible (at least to the ship firing at it!). That being said, your idea is something to consider.

[Cpt M]

ragozd,Fires under the rules as written are very large, destructive, and capable of causing significant structural damage. The type of fire that mitte_70 is discussing does not meet this level and is not covered under this rule (hence, the idea for a house rule). It is not that DDs (or other ships) are non-flammable; it is just that given the level of damage control that was standard for the period, such lower level fires would not have effected the structural integrity of the ship.

[CinC]

ragozd wrote:

mitte_70 - only one solution for you are home rules. ODGW after 30 years of testing decidad that all DD (except japan) are non-flammable ;)

ragozd,Michael, aka Coastal, has provided the justification for this design decision. The rationale behind the rules has been explained and made very clear. Should you disagree please provide your opinion without sarcasm, which serves no useful purpose.CinC

[Malcolm Wright]

Sarcasm? Seemed like a reasonable joking answer to me.As far as fires go, I too have found this rather strange. Fire accompanies most damage to a warship, especially if hit by HE. Lots of small ships were lost due to the combination of fire and other damage. Only yesterday I was doing some research on USS Ward, the ship that fired the first shot at Pearl Habour, and noted that she was lost in 1944 when fired from a Kamikaze hit could not be controlled. Nearly all the destroyers etc hit by Kamikaze suffered catastrophic fires. Those that put them out survived. Those that did not succumed.And as far as flamability goes, the Japanese were indeed some of the best tinder boxes afloat. That had a lot to do with a low priority given to damage control, and poor organisation of it.After initial play and noting the lack of fires on small ships, I adjusted the charts so that if a DD or smaller suffers a critical hit, and that results in an ammunition fire that does not cause the loss of the ship, a fire results. ANY destroyer hit by a Kamikaze is automatically given a fire as part of its damages.These changes do not produce and excessive number of fires, but now they do at least occur.Mal.Wright.

[Lonnie Gill]

I peeked over the trench a bit last night from putting the finishing touches on the WWI rules. Coastal has provided the basic idea behind the design decision not to have major fires for DDs and PCs. Indeed we had tried that during playtesting where, after many games, it was concluded to be a bit excessive for the smaller ships without aircraft facilities. Certainly there were many other sources for fires on WWII ships, but significant ones which affected the structural integrity of the ship usually involved these facilities.The Fire damage result is, of course, a summarized abstraction of many effects. This is an area where some may want more detail for night actions. One of the strengths of GQ is the ability to customize it to fit your views. GQ is also designed to evolve. It is really great to see some interesting approaches being discussed here. As I've mentioned before, no one person ever has all the good ideas. Adopting some of the "House Rules" will make General Quarters a better simulation for all of us. A few points of clarification are in order to start. There are already some Fire situations for DDs. Section 2.13.2 on page 2-13 provides that kamikaze crashes automatically result in a Fire as well as bomb damage. So, that suggestion is already in the rules. Type 93 24" torpedo tubes are also subject to Fires per the rules. And, Ammunition critical hits (which don't explode) result in loss of a turret or gun mount through Fire per Section 1.7.2 on page 1-12. As written, the fire is extinguished after disabling the turret/gun mount as part of the damage control process that floods the magazine. This could be altered to provide a continuing Fire which would take another damage control roll to extinguish as Mal has suggested.As always, there's a balance between streamlined play (KISS) and more detail. Hopefully shipmates will share their suggestions and ideas on this point.LONNIE

[Radek Gozdek]

Coastal wrote:

Historically, such fires were rare and usually associated with some highly inflammable source, such as shipboard hangers or, in the case of the IJN, the torpedo tubes (the Japanese oxygen fueled torpedoes were notorious for causing intense fires when damaged). The more common fires (if as any fire can be call “common”!) which did not cause such damage (and were more easily controlled by damage control teams) are not represented in the game (their impact doesn’t rise to the level of causing major structural damage). Given the effect of fires in the game, increasing their number might seriously skew the damage results. I would be very hesitant to increase their number without a lot of playtesting.

I'm very amazing that you can raise gradually full box damage from DD to BB by gun, and cant't by fire. It's no true that fires and burnigs was minor case for DDOf course I have not all case but:German DD Z28 was hit by 2 bombs - fule fire - burn out ship was leave at shallow. Also Z26 (forvard fire of 5.9" shell) and Z27 (from Enterprise hit at boiler room and tremendous fire) was lost also by fire tooJapan lost Ayanami - setting her afire at second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal by USS Washington, and Minegumo (a number of fires burning brightly in the darkness. USS Waller was ordered to dispatch Minegumo, but the blazing wreck sank before)US lost USS Duncan - set a fire at Battle of Cape Esperance. "McCalla located the burning, abandoned Duncan"http://www.ibiblio.o...e-9.html#page20USS Cushing Fires, exploding ammunition, and her inability to shoot any longer made the "abandon ship" {...} Her burning hulk at at Naval Battle of GuadalcanalUSS Monssen hit by some 37 shells, and reduced to a burning hulk at Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.Also, a US Navy report: DESTROYER REPORT - GUNFIRE, BOMB AND KAMIKAZEDAMAGE INCLUDING LOSS IN ACTION -October 17, 1942 to August 15, 1945http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/51.pdfpage 17About 50% of DD damaged baove water weapons had to combat resultant fires. On 11 cases 7 involved serious firespage 29USS Ralph talbot - persistent fire in the bridge structure, loss of firemainpressure forward and aft ... after seven hours the fire was extinguishedHit #2 ... Fire was started ... and quickly spreadUSS Johnston page 40hits 10-12 ... an intense fire started ... starting a fire ... the smoke ofthese fires forced evacuation of the bridge

[Jim O'Neil]

Sounds convincing... I will read the report with relish... thank you.

[Radek Gozdek]

fires system is a weak point of GQ3. Regardless of DD, fires results are only on hull box and too quick. My solutions are much comprehensive and work excelent :) - I use more hullboxes (second line of it) and superstructure boxes. Also hits on destroyed locations can set a fire.

[Lonnie Gill]

Now that Fleet Action Imminent is getting into the production cycle, I've gone back and relooked at the issue of fires for DDs. Ragozd and other have a point. Fires were significant for DDs and other small ships on a number of occasions. This had two aspects. First, in some cases, fires led to major structural damage, equating to the summarized Fire result on the DAMAGE table. Accordingly, I'm working on an update for download to registered users which will have a Fire result for the DD column. It will also incorporate the C•S•T option and will add the 3,000 yd row several of you have been asking for. [I found a way to squeeze it in.] This will provide BC penetration for 8" guns as well. Hiei beware!The second aspect of fires in night actions is more complex. Many ships ended up with numerous small and medium fires that illuminated them and made them easier targets. While these fires didn't add a great deal of additional functional damage, the targeting effect was very real, tending to attract every gun in the locality. So, how best to reflect this? My initial thought is to status a ship as "illuminated" for visual and target acquisition after "x" number of hits or perhaps certain types of hits. Let me know what you would suggest. The change should be simple and work within the context of the current DAMAGE table.Some of us will naturally want a more complex (and slower) simulation than others, and won't always agree. But by sharing our good ideas and house rules, we can evolve and improve the system for all. This is a good area for us to work to improve.LONNIE

[Jim O'Neil]

I think the Illuminated result with a foot note indicating that this is a small fire doing no damage BUT exposing the ship ... and certainly one you'd want to put out, is a good addition.As to whether this fire can become a raging inferno... that's a tougher call... I lean toward letting external effects (shells, torpedoes etc.) create further problems...

[William MacGillivray]

lonnie wrote:

The second aspect of fires in night actions is more complex. Many ships ended up with numerous small and medium fires that illuminated them and made them easier targets. While these fires didn't add a great deal of additional functional damage, the targeting effect was very real, tending to attract every gun in the locality. So, how best to reflect this? My initial thought is to status a ship as "illuminated" for visual and target acquisition after "x" number of hits or perhaps certain types of hits. Let me know what you would suggest. The change should be simple and work within the context of the current DAMAGE table.

If you want something simple, then how about this.Each time a ship receives hits in a night action, roll a D12. If the result is less than or equal to the total number of hits (or maybe equivalent hits?) received in that turn, then the vessel has an illuminating fire, lasting one turn (for simplicity). If the ship already has such a fire, then count it as already reciving one "bonus hit" for this rule (allowing the possibility of the previous turn's fire to remain, even if no real hits are received).Bill