|
Post by afilter on Oct 12, 2010 8:44:58 GMT -5
The REAL SOLUTION to the "plane/sub problem" is simple . . . play Pre-Dreadnoughts! Not only do you not have the problem with planes and subs (there weren't any), but a lot of both historical and what-if engagements have ships with relatively similar capabilities. Besides which there are some really unique-looking vessels in the Pre-Dread period. Finally, since "Rise of the Battleship" (for the Russo-Japanese War) and the soon-to-be-released "Rise of the Battleship II" (most other navies for the 1885-1905 era) are supplements to "Naval Thunder: Clash of Dreadnoughts", you will be able to game Pre-Dreadnoughts through WWI . . . (yes, I know that subs snuck into the latter conflict . . . but you can still ignore them. -- Jeff Very true....I am now really looking forward to the expansion of RotB II. As for Planes and Subs the more I think of it if you are playing a historical scenario which I think NT is very good for they are a non-factor as the OoB is already established. If doing a campaign then the rules probably work well depending on the fleet compositions. Unless you commit a huge tactical error like the British did with the Glorious or the USN at Samar carrier should not really ever be in range of enenmy guns anyway. The more I think about it the plane rules probably are well reflected. I do not really view NT as a pick up game like WoTC WaS where you randomly build a hypothetical fleet anyway.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 12, 2010 8:12:58 GMT -5
I wonder how many more got mis-labelled? Hopefully, yours was the only one. Who knows.....I did not even realize the error until you pointed it out as I trusted what they sent was accurate. I am pretty decent with my WWII ship identification, but without the drawing or a pic in front of me for WWI and earlier I am still lost as there are so many of them. I had ordered these months ago and had them sitting waiiting to be painted. Now that I know I will definately contact them and let them know about the error. I know they have a large selection of models and my guess is that a particualr batch was mislabeled after casting. Hopefully it is an isolated incident
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 22:58:27 GMT -5
I like the idea of using dull coat to seal everything to the base. Should keep the names from coming unglued. Exactly....very much help keep the paint intact when handeling the models as well.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 22:56:54 GMT -5
The labels are very nice, but wasn't the New Zealand an Indefatigable class BC? You are 100% correct. I just pulled the model from the base and realized PS sent me the wrong model. It is labeled A-111, but that is not what I recieved. I will have to talk to them and see if it can be corrected on a future order. Edit: just went through the web site and it appears I have a mislabeled KGV.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 21:11:46 GMT -5
This is part of the British squadron that fought Von Spee's Cruiser Squadron at the Battle of Coronel ( 1 Nov 1914). This battle preceeded The Battle of the Falklands and was a decisive victory for the Germans sinking two British warships with two escaping. 5 Weeks later the German Squadron would suffer the same fate at the hands of the British Battle Cruisers Invincible and Inflexible that had just arrived at port Stanely unknow to Von Spee when he decided to raid Stanley instead of by passining it on his way back to Germany. Models are 1/2400 Panzershiffe resin cast. HMS Good Hope: HMS Monmouth: HMS Glasgow(survived battle): HMS Oranto (Armed Merchant Cruiser also survived): HMS Canopus: HMS Canopus was an old Pre-dreadnought that did not actually make it to the battle of Coronel due slow speed and engine problems. Had it been there Von Spee would have likely been forced to withdraw when faced with HMS Canopus old but powerful 12" guns. HMS Canopus was actually at Port Stanley when Spee's Cruisers arrived. Spee immediately decided to withdraw when he saw the unexpected tripod masts of British capital ships. HMS Canopus was intentionally grounded to provide a more stable firing platform and fired some of the opening shots of the battle at Spee's squadron while the battle cruisers and cruiser made steam to begin the pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 19:54:46 GMT -5
Thanks, very nice. I've try to paint them on, not so easy or nice. Yes, definately very easy....I just finished 4 more that I will post when dry. Battle of Cornel. I like the look of the printed labels, IMO they give the model a clean professional look. After putting the time in painting hand labeling (unless on the bottom) seemed to take away from the model for me.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 18:16:56 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing...I will give it a closer look the next time we play.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 18:13:32 GMT -5
Hey, did you just print the names and flags? Where did you find the flags at? Correct, I use cardstock and then simple cut and glue on with white glue before I apply testors dull coat to ptotect the entire model. I cut and paste the flag pic off the web and keep them in a word file so when I need to make more they are all the same size.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 17:21:25 GMT -5
These are also Panzershiffe 1/2400 resin models. These are the units we played at NAVCON this past weekend. Von Spee's German Squadron: British Squadron:
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 17:16:59 GMT -5
These all all Panzershiffe 1/2400 Resin Models. German Squadron: SMS Seydlitz: SMS Derfflinger: SMS Moltke: SMS Blucher: British Grand Fleet Squadron: HMS Lion: HMS Tiger: HMS Princess Royal: HMS New Zealand: HMS Idomitable:
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 15:34:48 GMT -5
The only draw back IMO is lack on an on board plane mechanic, When designing the game I felt that the air and sub rules as written provide a much more realistic outcome for the game, than the "on board" systems employed by many other naval games. That said, some people do like to get out their plane and sub models and play with them. I really think though that doing an "on board" system for air vs. sea combat requires almost a completely separate ruleset for the aircraft to be done properly. As is, Naval Thunder focuses on the surface actions, and restricts the focus on air and sub operations to how they affect the surface battle. To truly expand the battlespace to encompass the details of air combat as well could be a whole supplement by itself. Maybe I'll do that someday, but for the core rules, most people really just wanted a fast and fun option for surface actions. Please do not get me wrong, I think the rules are top notch and very excited to have finally found a workable set. In fact I am painting up my Dogger Bank scenario fleets as I type. I am probably just tainted by all the other rules that include aircraft. I am thinking about using the Maps, strategic move and search rules from the AP games to mount a campaign and then use NT to fight out the meeting engagements that result. In that type of scenario the Air rules make alot of sense if carriers are involved. For a basic game of NT carriers ahve no roll as you stated it is about the gun fight.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 9:30:44 GMT -5
Sorry I don't have a full report as I was walking around and watching a few games in the AM. Yellow Sea was a Japanese victory as I recall with only a few Russian units escaping. The GM commented that we(Russians) inflicted more damage at Ulan than in the early scenario.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 11, 2010 0:27:45 GMT -5
How much damage did you inflict on Ajax and Achilles? Enough to theoretically escape to Rio de Janero? No, Graf Spee was badly mauled and going down....she only had a couple hull points remaining and the fires were still burning. She was going down.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 10, 2010 23:42:34 GMT -5
You might want to check this out....I think someone has beat you to it. monstersinthesky.com/I have been follwoing this project for sometime and hoping they final release it.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 10, 2010 23:38:06 GMT -5
Battle of the Falklands turned out historically with 3 or 5 German ships going down before they surrendered. Germans really do not stand a chance as the are outgunned.
The Battle or the River Plate was a draw. I commanded the Graf Spee. I chose to concentrate on the Exeter and try to keep Achilles and Ajax at long range. The strategy worked well, but the British gunnery was exceptional and they inflicted heavy damage including to the engines and starting a fire. The Exeter went down, but the engine damage and fires leas to the Graf Spee's demise.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 10, 2010 20:21:02 GMT -5
A nice report. However I suspect that the first photo was either a made-up scenario or the main ships of the Battle of the Yellow Sea. The Battle off Ulsan was a cruiser action -- and the ships pictured are battleships. -- Jeff Good catch....I took many pictures yesterday. That was Yellow sea that was played in the morning and I watched part of. We played Ulan in the afternoon. My Russian Flagship: One of my Japanese opponents: I failed to get any action shots during our game as I was caught up in the action as this was my first official game of NT. The Russians lost as per history, but we played very aggressively and took two Japanese units with us. The models are 1/1000 by houston and were professionally painted by "my wife paints battleships" who I understand is no longer painting for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Oct 10, 2010 15:05:30 GMT -5
Well I made it to NAVCON yesterday and ended up staying alot longer than planned. Actually was one ot the last to leave last night. The highlight for me was that I played 3 games of Naval Thunder. Russo-Japanese Battle of Ulan-Clash of Dreadnaughts Rise of the BattleshipWWI Battle of the Falklands-Clash or DreadnaughtsWWII Battle of River Plate-Battle ship Row/Bitter RivalsI have owned NT for ahile, but this was my first chance to play. I am now 100% hooked and have found my go to Naval Mini rules set. Even the guys who were running the VaS event last years have switched to NT. It was great to play in the order I did because you could see the improvements to damage control, Fire Control(Gun Ranges) and Torpedos(ship launched) in each era and it all kind of made sense. The designer really thought them out and the mechanics support all three time periods well. The rule book itself is kind of big at first, but the charts(player aid) and turn order are excellent and I can not say enough good about the ship data cards(especially the excel sheet) that come with the rules. If anyone is on the fence about NT I highly endorse it no matter what time period you are planning to game. The best part is my WotC (1/1800) models work excellent with NT(no basing required and the rules even mention using 1/1800 scale). The only draw back IMO is lack on an on board plane mechanic, but I think that can be worked out in the future and really only affect WWII. If you are looking for a Naval gunfight this is the rule set to go with.
|
|