|
|
Post by spackledgoat on Apr 14, 2011 4:27:20 GMT -5
I picked up Battleship Row not long ago, and since then my wife and I have been playing alot of "learn the rules" games using superglue bottles and other long skinny items. We absolutely love the game. It is something she can pick up and play easily, the topic is fascinating for me and we can play it quickly. So, I decided it was time to buy some fleets. I come from the 40K and Flames of War style gaming rather than historical, and therefore my inclination was to just pick two fleets that generally pointed up around each other.
I picked the Japanese and Americans, but when it came to perhaps picking some battleships it seemed the American ones are all a great deal more points than the Japanese. For example, I LOVE the look of the Hiei but a Kongo is barely half the value of a New Mexico. If I get an American battleship, it outclasses the Japanese so much, but if I just get a Kongo and only cruisers for the Americans they will be similarly outclassed (too much armor and big guns on the Kongo for 8 inch guns to really hurt I feel). Were the Japanese battleships that bad? I thought the Fusos and Ises were decent compared to the older American ships, but the game has them rated much lower.
My question is thus:
Would having a single Kongo against an American crusier force make it too difficult for the American player?
Am I crazy to try to have balance at all? With fleets of 7-8 ships, does the point costs even mean anything?
Here's what I have ordered now, what would you suggest to develop the fleets while being balanced (the wife and I are the only people playing around here)
American:
Wichita
New Orleans Class
Atlanta Class
Brooklyn Class
3 Fletchers
Japanese
Mogami Class
Takao Class
Sendai Class
3 Fubuki
I love cruiser, so I started off with a mix of heavies and lights for both sides. The forces also point up well, and the lights on each side match up well (atleast Sendai and Atlanta with all those freaking 5 inchers)
Thanks for any help you can give!
|
|
Bluebear
Commander
He who laughs
Posts: 405
|
Post by Bluebear on Apr 14, 2011 7:21:48 GMT -5
First of all, there is nothing wrong with having cruiser battles and ignoring the battleships. Just because the navies had certain ships didn't mean that they were everywhere. If you like cruisers, stay with them.
That being said, I will note that I have little interest in WWII, so I can't offer advice on any particular ships . . . but I presume that others will do so.
What I (and many others) like are the Pre-Dreadnoughts . . . the ships from the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, when everything was surface action . . . no planes, no subs, even no radios. The Russo-Japanese War had some very competitive historical actions, for example.
And WWI also had the British and German fleets, with some very even (although non-historical) actions possible . . . so if you tire of the second World War, do not hesitate to look at earlier periods . . . there are Naval Thunder rules for those as well.
However, in closing, let me re-iterate that there's nothing wrong with sticking to WWII cruiser actions . . . as long as you enjoy them, stick with them.
-- Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Apr 14, 2011 8:31:52 GMT -5
Welcome!
Glad you are enjoying the game. Currently I am playing all eras and I do tend to like the Pre-dread era like Jeff.
If WWII is your thing(it is what brought me to NT) then I encourage you to pick up Bitter Rivals as well. Bitter Rivals introduces all the European Fleets and provides many more scenarios including Pacific.
I have yet to play a "points" game and tend to opt for the histroical scenarios from the book or others based on research.
There are some great one provided in the book for USN vs IJN especially cruiser action. Savo Island and Empress Augusta Bay(Only 4 ships) come to mind as nice size and easy to play.
Don't overlook the Eurpoean Scenarios like Battle of River Platte and Denmark Straight Both only have 4 ships.
If I were you I would intitially look at these three historical scenarios:
Batttle of River Platte
Battle of Denmark Straight
Battle of Empress Augusta Bay
All only require a total of 4 ships each perfect for two players or up to 4. All would be great introductory scenarios that can be played again and again.
Two of the three are cruiser actions and the thrird (Battle of Denmark Straight) is the classic the Bismark vs. Hood. You could have all 3 historical scenarios ready to go only requiring a total of 12 ships.
Not sure what you are planning for Models. For WWII The GHQ line are very nice(cannot beat the detail) although a bit pricey. I just posted a sale alert in the Head for a store that carries GHQ (Nobel Knights).
Otherwise there are many other options and scales out there such as Panzershiffe (I use these for some WWI and Pre-dreads) that sacrafice some detail, but are very affordable. If size and detail are not a concern then the 1/6000 figurehead line is very afordable as you can get entire classes of ships for $4-6.
HTH,
|
|
|
|
Post by spackledgoat on Apr 14, 2011 8:40:38 GMT -5
I ordered all the ships from GHQ. I wanted the best models detail-wise, as the modeling is a huge part of the hobby for me. C-n-C looked nice also, but I couldn't find a UK retailer that shipped decently to Romania, which I could with GHQ.
I bought bitter rivals, and I'm going to try the scenarios. I have never really played a scenario driven game before, so it's strange for me to think of gathering specific ships and the sort. If you wanted a game with the right models, it seems like your collection would have to be able to be used in only 1-2 scenarios. I guess that's why people get huge collections of ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Apr 14, 2011 8:49:01 GMT -5
As stated GHQ is a good choice and you cannot beat the detail especially if you are a modeler. If you do aquire some of the scenarios the ships can always be used for generic "point" games as many were very active in other battles as well. As for size of your collection be careful it is a slippery slope.  I played Russo-Japanese war for the first time last fall and I now have the complete OoB for all the RJW batttles which you can see in the modeling section. Have Fun! |
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Apr 14, 2011 9:03:18 GMT -5
Yes, if you like the cruiser actions, by all means stick with them. This is a good source for initial reading about some of the most famous cruiser actions of the war. combinedfleet.com/battles/Guadalcanal_CampaignNow, as far as battleships go. . . yes, the modern U.S. fast battleships (South Dakota, Iowa, and North Carolina to a lesser extent) outclassed (nearly) everything else afloat at the time. That is why despite how cool these ships are, if I'm using U.S. battleships I will generally go with the older classes, that were more on par with what others had available. That's the difference between a true historical game and a sci-fi or quasi-history game. Sometimes one side is just totally overmatched by the other. The Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvannia, and Tennessee classes make better battleship match-ups against the ships available to Europe and Japan at the time. Colorado class too. . . but you're starting to tip the scales somewhat there. . . It makes for some great "what-ifs" for if the U.S. pacific fleet at the time of Pearl Harbor had been in the North Atlantic fighting the Germans, or the Mediterranean fighting the Italians. . . . or if Japan had opted for a gun battle on the open seas instead of the surprise airstrike on Pearl. |
|
|
|
Post by spackledgoat on Apr 14, 2011 9:30:28 GMT -5
I really think the "What ifs" are the most interesting part of wargaming. I can read all about a battle, but being able to see for myself how a different choice by a commander would play out is great.
The slippery slope is terrible. I just made my order last night and already I'm thinking about battleships, and how neat it'd be to put some Aussie ships with the American fleet. Stupid games and their addictive ways. I guess that is why we love them though.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Apr 14, 2011 18:38:24 GMT -5
I'm afraid many of us have not just visited the slippery slope, but fallen off the cliff with the size of our fleets. |
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Apr 14, 2011 21:59:26 GMT -5
I'm afraid many of us have not just visited the slippery slope, but fallen off the cliff with the size of our fleets. And once you start the free fall it seems to be into a bottomless pit!  |
|
|
|
Post by fluorophil on Apr 15, 2011 0:10:31 GMT -5
Absolutely! I just started with a few (!) battleships in 1/6000th, then a few more, then some cruisers ... then some more...and the destroyers. I wish I hadn't got rid of those 1/3000th Navwar a few years ago...
|
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Apr 15, 2011 17:49:31 GMT -5
Absolutely! I just started with a few (!) battleships in 1/6000th, then a few more, then some cruisers ... then some more...and the destroyers. I wish I hadn't got rid of those 1/3000th Navwar a few years ago... I know how that feeling...  |
|
Bluebear
Commander
He who laughs
Posts: 405
|
Post by Bluebear on Apr 16, 2011 0:45:27 GMT -5
"Slippery slope"? I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're referring to . . . I'd think about it but I'm trying to decide in what order I should try to assemble the 20-odd Houston 1/1000 Pre-Dreads that I now have . . . oh, and I've pretty much finished painting the two dozen merchant ships in 1/2400 . . . but I've no idea of what "slippery slope" you're referring to.
-- Jeff
|
|
I played Russo-Japanese war for the first time last fall and I now have the complete OoB for all the RJW batttles which you can see in the modeling section.
