hit percentage

[rockyr]

As I prepare to bring a SpAm War NT game to my local club, I am concerned about game hit percentages versus naval history (my club is filled with great geeks who know this data).

Some elements may have to do with game design, so I invite designers' comments as well as experienced NT players (I am just starting with this game).

The Battles of Santiago and Manila Bay had hit rates from the US main batteries of less than 3%. An 8"/35 could get off a round every two minutes easily, and often more. The 5" and 6" did at least one round per minute. Santiago was fought largely at 3000yds or less, while Manila ranges were as long as 9000yds and down to one quarter of that. Even the 3% hits were devastating to Spanish vessels both armored and not

In game terms, a turn is five minutes, but not necessarily all firing minutes. So perhaps a shot is just that - one main gun round but potentially modified by RoF (not applicable to the SpAm War).

With penetrations just a little below armor values for many targets, and usually within half a d10 roll for almost any, most hits will do full damage and the critical hits will add up fast. Given the relative power of guns to armor, that might be OK. Even cruiser guns and BBs' secondaries will make a mess of most of what they hit, especially at short range.

With base target numbers of 7 for AC, 8 for PC, hits will be in the 20-30% and even better at Santiago ranges. That seems far in excess of historical results, although one might modify for evasive maneuvers, splashes, etc, reducing the hits to 10%. A broadside still looks devastating.

Perhaps, though, the 12 turns on the order charts are the expected game length, so once again (as in many games) exact time/distance scales are not so important as relative interactions on the table.

So, to the question: have gamers experienced massive destruction with predreads? Not so much the RJW, but earlier ships?

I can readily see another fire control modifier beyond the 20"+ +1 per could correct this.

Ah, but, wait, as I write this I wonder if the 20" modifier is for the increased predread scale and would 10" at normal scale (which is still 5000yds and thus quite a distance for SpAm ships which expected combat at 1500 before the war).

Ideas, experience, comments?

I want to have the best experience for the club's first game so I can addict them to this period and these rules.

R

[ckosacranoid]

in pre dreads its +1 to hit for every inch over 20". if you look in the russia/japan war there is also a +1 to hit overall for the fire contol.

[TheDreadnought]

Well I think you'll find there is lots of shooting that goes on in the pre-dred period.

Turns represent multiple salvoes with hit percentages roughly corresponding to historical values. Glad somebody noticed, because I did sit down and figure this out to an approximation of a 3% hit rate.

The aforementioned 'pre-dread' modifier is intended to scale back accuracy for the pre-dreads.

Ultimately, the game is supposed to be about fun, however. So I'd keep the focus on that and trust that historically things would work out as the rules depict - a lot of time was spent playing with the numbers so that it would work that way.

The major difference lies in the willingness of wargamers to close to brutally effective range and accept severe losses in order to bring the enemy to decisive battle. Because, of course, that's more fun - and wargames allow the players to do that sort of "all in" kind of engagement. That's kinda the point actually, but the inevitable result is much higher lethality than the historical record because the historical commanders were absolutely NOT willing to do that, in most cases.

As far as the 12 turns go. . . that represents how many turn-lines could be reasonably fit on the data card. . . nothing more. Most engagements seem to be wrapped up in fewer turns. . . again because wargamers like to close to point blank range and roll the dice. . . metaphorically (. . .and physically).

[rockyr]

I look forward to trying all this out on the tabletop. Thanks for the design insights, Dreadnought!
R

[ckosacranoid]

thanks dread....

[rockyr]

My first WTJ ships arrived! Very small, but very nice.

I also began some number crunching on firepower and determined that my first views of "rain of steel" will not be so once one puts in smoke, evasive movements, range, and the arcs of fire limits. All very reassuring. On the other hand, 8+" guns can sink some vessels with a single shell, and those unarmored ships will not last long if hit. But then it is not easy to hit them either!

I do think that the usual scale will be better than the doubled distances/halved scale to avoid the likelihood of sailing straight through arcs of fire. With rules that fire only in a fire phase, not anywhere in movement due to continuous fire represented rather than individual volleys, short move distances related to frequency of fire gives a more accurate simulation. Besides, 1"=500yds is less than twice the model scale, which is a pretty good game-to-model ration for naval games indeed.

I also found making ship sheets for the vessels not already depicted in RotB2 fairly easy, once I found the design device on this forum (I have the Concord, Petrel, Monterey, and Monadnock). I made nice sheets with the datacharts on the left a the ship's photo on the right.

R

[TheDreadnought]

Awesome. Now it's just time to fight some battles, take some pics, and post them on the AARs board!

[warchariot]

Yes, AARs always get great response and give people that little push to play a game and try out new rules/ideas.

[rockyr]

It occurs to me to put a photo of the model on the ship sheet as well, especially for beginners.

When the rest of my fleet arrives and is put together (that does not take long at 1:3000), I will host a game and post an AAR. I will con one of the players into taking better photos than I can.

R

[warchariot]

Have the other side take photos it keeps them involved.