nisk
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 14
|
Post by nisk on Mar 3, 2011 18:09:40 GMT -5
We can do the same this weekend if we get a chance to play again. I really liked the change of rules. It definately made the DD's a bit tougher to hit and kill at longer ranges. Once you got within 2nds and 3rds though not so much, but then again thats what the smaller caliber guns were for. However it doesn't do any good if your opponent blows off all your 2nds and then starts working on 3rds and the DD's get in close!
One question I had, Do you still get to roll for torps for a CL/CA and DD/DDE if said CA/CL or DD/DDE's get killed by BB's or CL/CA's in the earlier gun steps? I know gun fire is null but was unsure of Torps, since you assign torp fire before/sametime as MG fire.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Mar 3, 2011 22:43:16 GMT -5
We have always played that the torps are in the water, so yes, they damage, at least that's what we do.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 4, 2011 0:14:47 GMT -5
Torps are considered to fire during each ship's normal shooting phase, then are resolved at the end of the turn. Otherwise, the DD's fire their torp before the BBs have a chance to stop them.
But if you prefer it the other way, that's fine too. Makes how lethal secondaries are less of a concern though.
|
|
nisk
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 14
|
Post by nisk on Mar 4, 2011 19:16:12 GMT -5
So the "official" ruling is that they don't get a chance to fire if they get sunk by a bigger vessel in a earlier phase. I will run this past the others next time we play and see what the concensus is. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 4, 2011 20:47:39 GMT -5
Nisk, you just don't want the Yamato to take a bunch'a torps up her skirt again like she did in the last game. ;D
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Mar 4, 2011 23:58:26 GMT -5
We play it as I said, but we haven't changed to the harder to sink DD rules you are using. So it gave the DDs a little more bite.
|
|
|
Post by admiralgrafspee on Apr 6, 2011 14:12:15 GMT -5
Here are the ideas I was considering as changes to Battleship Row in the next update. What do you guys think? Destroyers become base target number 10+ All guns smaller than 5.5" become DMG 1 Guns 5.5" - 6" become damage 2. All others as-is Evasive action costs a flat 3" of movement. Somebody want to try these out and see if these make destroyers a little too powerful?? What other stuff should I include in the next update? Changing the dmg on those secondaries is going to affect a lot of ships if not pretty much all of them! Think of all those light cruisers out there that are just getting a huge reduction in firepower. If you do make this change will you also be adjusting the points values of all the ships affected? I like the idea of increasing the to hit on DD's to 10+ and the fixed 3" movement cost for evasive. It seems to solve the immediate problem of destroyers being too fragile without having to modify every ship in the game.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Apr 6, 2011 15:21:56 GMT -5
Yeah, that is true about the scope of that change.
I had though about introducing "scout cruisers" too, for cruisers of less than 7,000 tons. Making them a 9, to distinguish from the larger cruisers that would be 8's.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Apr 6, 2011 16:10:47 GMT -5
Yeah, that is true about the scope of that change. I had though about introducing "scout cruisers" too, for cruisers of less than 7,000 tons. Making them a 9, to distinguish from the larger cruisers that would be 8's. Thoughts? Not a bad idea. I like the ideas of small hard to hit CLs.
|
|
|
Post by admiralgrafspee on Apr 6, 2011 16:37:56 GMT -5
Yeah, that is true about the scope of that change. I had though about introducing "scout cruisers" too, for cruisers of less than 7,000 tons. Making them a 9, to distinguish from the larger cruisers that would be 8's. Thoughts? Not a bad idea. I like the ideas of small hard to hit CLs. I'll second that.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Apr 6, 2011 18:39:39 GMT -5
Not a bad idea. I like the ideas of small hard to hit CLs. I'll second that. Sounds like a good idea to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by regiamarina on Apr 6, 2011 20:57:47 GMT -5
I think the 10+ to hit for destroyers and the 3" flat penalty for evasion is a good fix for increasing the effectiveness of destroyers without altering too much of the game. This has worked for my firends and I in our last few games. I like the idea of filling in the 9+ to hit with a Scout Cruiser class. I'd also look at putting some of the big DDs into this class as well such as the French Fantasque or Mogador.
Martin
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Apr 10, 2011 9:49:05 GMT -5
Several Italian light cruisers, including the very fast Attilio Regolo class would fall into this category. The Dutch Tromp class would also be included.
|
|
meesch56
Lieutenant
It was a Cruel Sea.
Posts: 57
|
Post by meesch56 on Apr 10, 2011 16:10:27 GMT -5
I also like the "scout Cruiser" idea, but can't we apply the 9+ to all CL's except a few that max speeds might exclude?
This would require the least modifications to the data quick reference sheet.
Mike out
|
|
|
Post by regiamarina on Apr 11, 2011 0:25:15 GMT -5
I was just suggesting that there are other ships that could fall into this category as they are almost too big to be classed as destroyers but are too small to fall in the same category as heavy cruisers.
I agree that putting all CLs into the scout cruiser category is easiest to implement but will make for some broken ships. The Brooklyn, Southampton and Fiji classes come to mind. A light cruiser rating is based on the calibre of gun they carry so these ships which range from 8000-10000t carry a lot of 6" guns instead of the heavier calibre 8" guns. These ships are also heavier in displacement than many heavy cruisers, but your suggestion would make them harder to hit. I think Dreadnought's idea of splitting the cruiser class based on displacement is probably the way to go. It will be more annoyingly fiddly to change the data but will make for a more balanced and better game in the long run.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Apr 11, 2011 9:02:44 GMT -5
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could just say light cruisers vs. heavy?
Unfortunately, some of the US "light" cruisers in particular were much bigger and more heavily armored than other heavy cruisers. So it would need to be done on displacement. The upside of that decision is that looking at the data is easy, and it cuts down the number of changes that have to be made, vs. changing EVERY light cruiser.
I'll probably leave the "super destroyers" as destroyers and let them have their day in the sun, but I'll take a look at them and decide for sure later.
|
|
jdon
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 11
|
Post by jdon on Apr 13, 2011 21:13:28 GMT -5
When and how will all these changes be made official?
May I suggest that the clarification provided in the thread titled "Rules Question" also be included? (That's the one about how to resolve main battery criticals against DDs.)
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Apr 14, 2011 8:54:07 GMT -5
Next time I do an update to Battleship Row. I hope to be able to do that later this year.
|
|
jdon
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 11
|
Post by jdon on Apr 14, 2011 22:21:58 GMT -5
I played the Cape Spada scenario using the 10+ rule for destroyers. While the cruisers exchanged mostly ineffective fire, I sent three British destroyers charging in for a torpedo run. They managed to get within long range for torpedoes, but didn't survive to attain medium range. Given that the Italian light cruisers were designed as Destroyer Killers, this seemed about right. While the destroyers were being sacrificed, Sydney was able to inflict some critical hits that eventually sank one Italian CL. The other escaped, though with significant damage.
Were I to do it again, I'd hold the DDs back till more gunfire damage had been done to at least one of the CLs, and make more use of evasive action. So, the game effects of the rule change seemed about right, as did the "lessons learned".
|
|
|
Post by zoranno on Jun 21, 2011 9:18:50 GMT -5
Gday all
I'm new to Naval Thunder and have yet to play my first game, still painting my fleets but I am a very keen amateur historian and wargamer.
The simple fact of the matter is that there were not that many daylight torpedo attacks because it was sheer suicide to approach a battle line, while I'm probably not familiar with all of the actions as some of you, most of the successful attacks were all made at night in darkness. By WW2 I believe the primary role of the fleet destroyer had changed from delivering a torpedo attack to escorting major surface units, scouting ahead of the fleet, anti-submarine screen and patrols and probably a few other roles I can't think of it being a bit late over here, basically the destroyer had taken over the role of the scout cruiser from WW1 since by WW2 a cruiser even a light cruiser was considered a major fleet unit and required escorting destroyers. While the destroyer was still capable of delivering a torpedo attack it was done only in desperation during daylight or if the destroyers can get close enough at night.
Hence the frustration of naval wargamers when there destroyers get sunk by enemy major units or screening ships before they can get in range to deliver an effective torpedo attack, it really should be hard for any ship to close with major enemy fleet units.
Oh I love the rules, I am dying to play my first game
Regards, Zoranno
|
|