World War 1 Naval Campaign in the Med

I would prefer a plotted fire system for ships using centralized fire control; this will also make it easier to keep track of the modifiers from turn to turn for acquiring new targets and continued firing on a target. If someone makes up turn orders charts, they could have a section for move plot (perhaps sub-divided with a small section to write in the fire modifier based on speed/turning), fire plot, and a little box to check off if the the firer was on target (for modifiers). This would make it easier to track some of the modifiers.

My understanding for hitting the target is that for centralized FC, we roll one die to see if the fire is on target. The roll needed is 3+, although there are all sorts of amusing modifiers. If the fire is on target, we roll a number of d6s equal to the number of guns firing to see which actually hit, using the to hit chart. We then determine areas, etc. as normal. For localized FC, we simply roll the numbers as listed, with range capped at 30 inches.

I see the mods for armor penetration, but am unclear what "sp" means for a penetration mod.

For ships with localized guns, I don't see the need to plot....however, localized guns should be resolved first, in case the mods for "multiple batteries firing on a target" kick in, thus confusing the poor centralized FC people trying to spot the splashes

For crits, my understanding right now is that when a location is hit multiple times in a salvo, the number of hits, minus 1, are rolled again. These cause crits on a roll of "6". All crits are then rolled, with 1-5 indicating an additional hit on the area and a 6 indicating something special, such as blowing up, jammed steering, fires,etc.

My only other observation is that the modifier for rake is perhaps inappropriate for longer ranged firing, perhaps anything beyond 20-30". At those ranges the major bonus for "t"ing an enemy was reduced fire coming back at you, rather than gaining a better to hit number.

1. Plotting fire can work, but only if individual players have control of 3-6 ships each, max. Otherwise it will slow down play significantly. While perhaps more accurate in terms of simulation, it does have its limits in terms of actual play. In some ways, we have already been doing this, but tend to switch targets as other players fire before, and we switch targets accordingly. In effect, we will just be hard coding our targets so that we don't switch fire after the effects of previous shots.

2. The volley fire concept, and time frame work well, as far as I've seen. The abstraction of the actual combat works for teh scale, and doesn't get too gritty. Even so, we may want to consider shortening the time ratio to 5-10 minutes. I'll have to look at some of the other rules I have to get a better feel.

3. I much prefer the 6+6 for a crit roll. A modifier could be used for multiple hits to a location, making a crit more likely. This would represent the additional loss of armor/structure, and the bigger gaping holes. I think that may work best. Have to see it in action for any sense of if it will or not.

4. Crew quality/training should be a factor, but in terms of the rules, we may want to keep it optional. That said, it should be thoroughly tested as anything else, to make sure it properly reflects what is intended, and doesn't unbalance the rules.

5.

I'd at least like to try plotting fire at some point. In the 4 powers game, Murph kind of raised this point, where he left an effectively sunk ship on the board, using it to take additional fire, with out telling how damaged it was.
There is a conceptual issue here I think. Given the stated time scale, we are dealing with multiple shots, even in the Pre-Dread era, and the abstraction I think is causing some conceptual anomolies. The target switching in teh fire phase is OK, pre-Dread, due to what Tim said, and given the time frame per turn. What I suggest is cutting teh time frame down for WW1, to 5-10 minutes, and no target switching. Why? A. rates of fire are significantly increased with the addition of semi-automatic breech guns, as well as doctrinal and training improvements. B. Naval battles were either short and furious (Falklands), or drawn out affairs with extreme long range shooting (Jutland). The time length of naval battles shorten signifantly from era to era. C. Naval gun fire was more coordinated in WW1, with concentration of fire being a doctrinal standard.

A number of interesting points are raised above.

"I'm actually a proponent of plotting fire."

Regarding centralized fire control this was used in WW1, previous conflicts however involved individual turret crews each aiming at their own target. By use of doctrine, voice tubes and runners a captain could try to control which enemy was fired on although I suspect many gunners just blazed away at the closest potentially enemy target.

Pre-WW1 I have built in no penalties for switching targets or initially acquiring targets. This is because gunners generally guessed at what seemed to be a good elevation, tried to account for the roll of their own ship, and fired away in the general direction of the enemy. There was effectively no way to correct aim, the 10th shot being no more or less likely to hit than the first. And I should point out that each turn of our games represents multiple shots for each gun. I figure each turn is 10-20 minutes. If we were trying to simulate individual shots 3-4 % hits was good shooting in those days.

Pre-WW1 I don't see much advantage to pre-plotting targets for your ships, and there is the obvious disadvantage of slowing down the game. Still I am interesting in hearing arguments in favor of pre-plotting, and if enough people favor it we should try it some time.

Actually it is. Ron's comments have me considering rolling for location then rolling for possible crit, 1-5 being no effect, 6+ being a double hit, "9" (6+6) being a serious critical, type dependent on the location hit. My originally thought which is still on the website is to roll as above for each location that is hit multiple times in the same volley, rolling for the number of hits in the location -1. In other words you don't get to roll for a crit if a location is only hit once. The original system obviously causes less hits, but it is a little more complex - and possibly doesn't generate enough hits.

What calculations do we not use it for?

In some cases we use sequential fire, it is for instance an easy way to simulate the lesser trained crews and older guns of the Chinese at Yalu, while speeding up the game by eliminating the necessity of keeping track of guns that were hit but still able to fire this turn. In other cases we have used simultaneous to mean that guns hit that turn may still fire back, but have not required pre-plotting of fire which I suppose would seem more simultaneous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "take advantage of any its already scored". How does waiting to be last to fire give a player an advantage? There are two separate issues here: 1) Should one side fire first due to crew or hardware superiority with the opposing ships unable to fire back with destroyed guns? (In other words should fleets fire simultaneously with each other?) 2) Should the firing of one's own side be pre-plotted, leading perhaps to being forced to fire on a ship that has already been sunk? (In other words treat friendly ships fire as simultaneous.)

I'm actually a proponent of plotting fire. While it can slow down play, if single players are controlling large numbers of ships, it will alleviate the problem of switching fire in teh middle of the phase. It's not really untill WW2, that fire control systems are good enough to make a switch like that. Up till then, fire control was directed from one or two centers, which relayed info to the gunners (usually 1 fore, 1 aft center). Centrally directed fire control didn't allow for quick target changes, and at times, excess fire would be poured into effectively eliminated ships. Something to consider.

I didn't think of that. Duh. OK, with that now in mind, the effective d9 system should be applied to critical hits as well. You hit a section, roll for crit, needing a 6 for a possibility, then another d6 1-3: NE, 4 minor, 5 major, 6 catastrophic. That may slow down play too much, but it is a basis to work from.

we use a d9 for some calculations but not most. in think this is really a hybrid system of your own making. its alot like saying that the game uses simaltanious fire. the fire dose not take place at once it only allows ships to fire back. i feel the best way to run the fire system is to declare one side the attacker and have that side resolve their fire, then the other side will fire all guns includeing any that were hit during that round of fire. i like this idea since it will prevent people from waiting to be the last to fire inorder to take advantage of any hits already scored.

Actually we are effectively using a d9, considering that we allow for 6+4, 6+5, and 6+6. I see a d9 as superior to a d10 for our purposes in that it is a bit faster in play, and when necessary allows for a probability of as little as 3% (the chance of a 6+6 result).

1. With non-historical battles, you can do as you please, no problem. But with historical, or semi-historical, you get stuck with what was available. It's not always the greatest to play, but it is teh way it should be IMO. And of course, balanced battles will go out the window in a campaign game.

2. I agree with the GW syndrome analysis. Part of the problme is the d6. It's range of possibilities is limited, and you will at some point end up with statistical anomolies. A higher die type will alleviate some of the problem, but there is no perfect solution, though using percentiles comes close.

I agree with this. The smaller ships, even as high as the CL's, were still poorly armored, and lacked the stamina for extended fights. The big ships, with thick belt and hull armor, are much more difficult to destroy by volley fire alone. And, as Eric pointed out, there is too much historical basis for them. At least 1/3 of all ship casualties in WW1 were due to "critical hits," to magazines, steering, bridges, etc.

It would be a good idea to limit crits to ships of certain sizes, say ACs and above in WW1, I'm not sure what size for pre-war.

i say in a d6 system crits take place during many games. the last battle we fought the only ship i lost was due to two rounds of fire of two shots each. the first salvo of two at 30 plus inches hit and penetrated the same location causeing my cruiser to go dead in the water. the next round of fire at 20 plus inches resulted in one hit in the same location which was enough to force me to roll for sinking which i failed. in my opinion thats was enough critical hits for me.

Now now - I'm a proponent of "even" games and I don't mind crits..

There is too much historical justification for them, heck even in pre-dread era.

I have a specific mindset about "scenario" battles - it should be possible for both sides to *fight* and win. No player likes to play a battle where running away is the only logical option -games like that should be run as players vs. ref. (Exactly the same as I feel that most assaults vs static defense should be players vs. ref)

None of that applies to campaign games of course...

My primary concern with crits hasalways been frequency...I'll have to read over the current rules again before I say much, but my concern has been to avoid the "GW syndrome" where you might as well not even push the minis around - just throw hands-fulls of d6s at each other and the most "6s" wins.

I am interested in seeing how the crit rules play out. I like rules sets that go quickly, so if crits don't add anything and slow things down, I wouldn't be in favor of adding them. Lets see how they play and go from there.

Yeah, what he said. Let's play it out with the Hapsburgs and Italians, and see how it goes.

Crits need to be in the game as an optional rule. They are an extra level of detail and slow the game down slightly, but sticking to a simple d6 system should minimize this. Proponents of "even" battles will hate them, what fun is it when a lucky hit blows up your flagships magazine? Proponents of historical battles should demand them because they did happen and could decide battles.

A steering hit decided the battle of the Yellow Sea in the Russo/Jap war, as well as more famously dooming the Bismark in WW2. Other less dramatic steering hits occured in the R/J and WW1 period. Magazine explosions killed 3 BCs a Jutland, nearly sank a German BC at Dogger Bank, and of course the Hood while fighting the Bismark in WW2. But then there were other battles where critical hits were insignificant or apparently non-existent.

I plan to playtest the crit system next week. I am undecided as to whether it should be part of the WW1 campaign and I am interested in what people think.

Crits in the pre-Dread era can be redundant, especially at the smaller scales. However, in the post-Dread world, and considering this is a campaign game, crits are appropriate. why? First, because specific crits can effect so much more than in previous eras. Fire control and signals are just as important as speed, steering, and the guns. The new technologies give greater chances for such criticals, as there are few remaining sail, or sail/steam vessels left on active duty with the major powers. Secondly, as it's a campaign game, reapir times, and damage control are significant factors. Specific critical damage may "kill" a ship, with out it suffering the massive ammounts of damage that has been seen in previous games. I'll look and see if I can find my old copy of Cordite and Steel, and show you what most WW1 rules sets are like.

hmmm? are you includeing crits in the ww1 game? i thoguht crits were table as part of the game.

I only had a chance to glance at the CH tables, but they looked good for what we're doing. I really hate to quantify the % of times a CH should occur. Rather, I firmly believe that it should be a % based on: 1. A base %; 2. # of hits to a specific location; 3. Size of shell and range. Of course, this may be problmeatic, given the scale, and nature of the base rules set. Simplify teh criticals as much as possible, yet retain their significance. I'll review the tables tomorrow and give something more definite.

"c" is centerline, such turrets fire 90% to both port and starboard - in other words a combination of "p" and "s".

As far as odds of crits coming up I'm pretty uncertain how likely it should be. As written if you inflict 2 hits on a ship one time out of six you create a critical which either causes an extra hit or with another one time out of six takes you to the crit table. So with 2 hits from the same ship there is a one out of 36 chance of a substantial critical, or about 3%. A typical dreadnought fires 12 primary guns, and at a reasonable range should inflict 2 hits.

Or maybe I should simplify and have a reroll on every hit with a 6 generating a critical, meaning that every single hit has a 3% chance of a good crit. Now that you have me thinking about it this seems like it would be better.

Two of the crits - steering and magazine explosion - are pretty spectacular. If we go with a six followed by a six as described above such hits should occur about 1% of the time, and more like 2% for early WW1 navies without good flash protection.

This leads to the question of how often critical hits should occur. What percent of the time should a penetrating shell cause a serious crit? Ron, and others, what do you think?

Hi Tim
[50] 3f 2f 3c 2a 3a
this location data was copyed from the new ship list the f's and a's are on the chart but what is the c's arc of fire? or is it a typo.

I like the crit hit table but maybe roll for the 6 on any 2ed hit to the same location on the same turn? The 2ed hit from the same salvo is so remote as to likely never come up..
1 in 36 for the dubbles after rolling for multable hits, times 1 in 6 to see if you go to the crit hit table is a bit over kill.

Set up/Basis:
1. Begin Historically, but allow for divergence. We're only going to be the fleet CoS's, so the politics and land aspects will be out of our hands. Allow for the historically possible "what ifs", such as Italy remaining with teh Central Powers, Greece to go pro-German, etc.
2. Eric has a good point about maps, and the strategic level stuff. Maybe we should use the Great War at Sea: Mediterranean map as a basis for this? I don't have a copy (I have the North Sea), but I think this would fit the bill for what we're looking for.

Mines/Smaller ships:
1. Mines are a factor to be considered, but at the scale we'll be using, and the nature of the game, I suggest that mines be resolved in the strategic phase. We can resolve the effects of mines when fleets sortie through mined areas, ports, straights, etc, prior to the tactical battle.
2. DD's etc: IMO, these should be in there. Though in a different fashion than the larger ships (CL's, AC's CB's, BB's, etc). The main use of these small ships (DD's, MTB's, etc), was for recon, and in swarm attacks against larger ships. Torpedo accuracy wasn't all that great, and successful actions by the small stuff, was usually as a result of seceral making attack runs against a single larger ship. For that, I suggest using a DD (or what have you) base to represent 5-10 smaller ships, and give them a single torpedo attack per turn. Given the scale, I don't see this as a problem.
3. Subs: Probably should be used more like mines in the strategic phase, as Jason suggested. These were used more for merchnat raiding and recon than direct ship to ship combat actions. Sub actions should effect recon, supply, and communications.

I just wanted to throw my two cents in on this one.

Take a look at Murphs book "Janes fighting ships of WW1" I think that's the title and it shows that the English lost very few battleships in head to head combat with other battleships. Rather I think they lost like a dozen, some being lost to shore fired torpedos and mines. Mines even today are a real pain in the prick. Trust me my secondary job is finding mines, my primary job is finding subs (which sank a few BB's in WW1 as well I believe). Anyhow if you want to be true historic mines and torpedo's should be included in the game, however they should not actually be "played in game", doing so would only detract from the true spirit of a game that is based off fleet tactics and having BB's blast away at eachother.

Personally I would reduce subs and mines into an abstract attrition role especially if your going to be playing a campaign game. I'm kinda envisioning something along the lines of having like a pre-battle chart where you could role (with modifiers as to how many subs are present and what kinda precautions are being taken against them,) on a chart and whack a ship or two at random. IE well you came into latoral waters with your fleet to blockade the enemy in port. Before the battle your enemy roles because he has two subs patroling his coast and hey look one of your BB's has to now move 6" instead of the usual 3" before she turns because her rudders are damaged. And one of your PC's is lacking a hull hit because she took a torpedo.

It sounds like alot of rules to add on but the alternative is to come up with a bag full of rules to incorporate subs mines and the like into your game and that might end up being alot.

I take it we're contemplating a WWI med campaign as a prelude to a "real" ww1 campaign?

If so - I would start with the "basics" hsitorical deployments. Give people some "plausible" starting options/changes. (As a novel thought, possibly even allow the brits/french to WEAKEN their starting forces and gain VPs for doing so - ships transferred to the atlantic/north sea)

I think the map needs to be more complicated than in the spanam war - maybe not on the "hex" level - but lots more regions/ports. There probably should even be some abstracted landing/land combat system.

I would keep torpedo boats, subs, mines etc in the game - abstracted enough that it doesn't become the whole focus...but they should be there..I don't want the british fleet for example sailing into the Dardanelles because there aren't any mines.

I want a number 2 with pork fried rice and an egg roll.

I think a full Historic WWI game would not be much fun to much one sided

i try not to.