NT: NAVCON 2010

[afilter]

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 Battleship


WWI Battle of the Falklands-Clash or Dreadnaughts


WWII Battle of River Plate-Battle ship Row/Bitter Rivals


I 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.

[Bluebear]

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

[afilter]

Oct 10, 2010 20:06:22 GMT -5 Bluebear said:

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.

[shigure]

I wanted to go to NAVCON, but the family reunion got in the way...:-(((( But at least it looks like you had a great time. How did the other battles you participated in turn out?

Thanks for the pics of the games. The shell splashes in the top pic really look nice.

[afilter]

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.

[shigure]

The Falklands battle would be hard for the Germans to win with the 8x12" guns of two RN BCs. We tried it with two IJN ACs only armed with 4x12" and found it difficult to beat the longer ranged heavier gunned IJN vessels.

How much damage did you inflict on Ajax and Achilles? Enough to theoretically escape to Rio de Janero?

[afilter]

Oct 11, 2010 0:23:35 GMT -5 shigure said:

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.

[Bluebear]

shigure,

I'm almost certain that those "splashmarks" are also from Houston (like the ships). They are marketed by GREAT ENDEAVORS (under "Other"):

www.greatendeavours.co.uk/ships/index.php

afilter . . . I know that you didn't play in it, but how did the Yellow Sea scenario turn out?


-- Jeff

PS, I should note that there is an extensive Yellow Sea scenario included in the "Naval Thunder: Rise of the Battleship" module.

[afilter]

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.

[TheDreadnought]

Oct 10, 2010 15:05:30 GMT -5 afilter said:

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.

[shigure]

Bluebear,
Thanks for the info. on the splashmarks. I will have to try and get some of those.

The Dreadnought,
I would agree the air combat should be a completely different ruleset. Search rules would really be critical in carrier battles.

[afilter]

Oct 11, 2010 13:22:53 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

Oct 10, 2010 15:05:30 GMT -5 afilter said:

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.

[Bluebear]

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

[afilter]

Oct 11, 2010 22:45:30 GMT -5 Bluebear said:

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.

[shigure]

If you play a carrier battle, please let us know what happens. It would be very applicable to WWII Pacific naval campaigns.