[leopard]

aware a size stat adds complexity, but would need a D10 system to be worthwhile – its really a way of shifting the “its a destroyer!” modifier to be the ships size but also allow “its the Yamato!” at the other end

key being for most craft its a “0” so ignorable, but removes the need for other modifiers, traits or special rules for what amounts to a “hit dice” modifier, its just a stat, shoot at this, apply this mod. thankfully Warlord is good at avoiding wordy special rules that amount to “+1 to hit” etc.

yes torpedoes overall worth a look, the game misses a huge use for them, treat them as “terrain” almost, its viable in many games (and reality) to fire them knowing the hit chance isn’t amazing but with the intention of making the enemy change course towards or away from specific directions – in effect take the speed of the torpedo into account and give the target a chance to break off to try and evade unless you get very close – I get the abstraction but its actually something useful to be able to do

and yes have seen its not always 1 barrel = 1 AD, some being “2 AD” per turret, others “1AD with a reroll” to be what amounts to 1.5AD etc, just seems that say long range at the side of a battleship, with another, which keep in mind is likely only just within sight is a situation where getting a hit should be hard enough (i.e. not a 4+, 4 to 5 then back to 4), having an average of half the shells you lob hit is a bit much especially given how ships fired a spread at that range to get more chance of a hit but minimal chances of multiples – again a D10 system would probably be better here as it allows a bit more space for such things

still think overall its a good game and its enjoyable to play, just a few bits test the level of immersion in it being “WW2 at sea” a bit really.

as with a lot of Warlord stuff, closer to “the game of the film” than “the game of the war” with a focus on the spectacular over the realistic

[leopard]

had a few more games today, managed to even win one, the Destroyer flotilla has proven its worth, not quite enough for scouting duties reliably yet but I want a few more anyway.

Game 1: Royal Navy V IJN with a Kongo & Mogami, basically ran rings round them, lost as my fleet lacked a “bruiser” of any significance (I lack any of the cheaper battleships), lost but learnt a lot about destroyers

Game 2: similar matchup, except managed a win.

both games hardly any IJN torpedoes fired due to a lack of targets, mostly because the Kongo was having fun with my cruisers

Game 3: larger, fighting Americans, who actually had some destroyers of their own, mine doing excellent work keeping his off me and generally being a royal pain.. again need a bruiser, have Prince of Wales, amazing how much damage that can take, and take it it most certainly did..

thoughts for any future versions

• swap the “to hit” dice for a D10, balance around that, as well as a “fast target” -1, have a “slow target” +1 so damaged ships get easier to hit (also have a “very fast” -2, and a “stopped” +2, this applying to anything with a speed of zero, then have “fixed target” be a +3)
• if going with a D10 system add a “size” stat to each ship in place of the -1 to hit a destroyer, maybe cruisers -1, destroyers -2, escorts -3 (but likely slow enough they are easier to hit for speed), and perhaps an accuracy shift stat per weapon type (normally 0, -1 for weapons noted as having rubbish accuracy or fire control, maybe +1 for weapons noted the other way)
• given Type-93 torpedoes the same BP, Short & Long brackets as other torpedoes, but the larger Extreme range, can still hit but they didn’t get miraculously more accurate than anyone elses
• drop “roll one dice per barrel” for a more balanced mechanic, maybe twin turrets two dice, triple & quad two dice with a +1 to hit or re-rolls (would need testing), reflect the way ships tended to straddle the target – or allow “straddling fire” as an option to roll fewer dice at range but more accurate.

there are other things but trying to keep it simple, currently a lot of battleships are able to fire to 29-30″ as “Long” range, so if they have the side of a target go from “unable to hit” (over the horizon) to a 4+ to hit with each barrel which seems a bit much (4+, 5+ for range, 4+ for side aspect)

[leopard]

seems there is enough “gamey” bits around aircraft that for now likely not bothering with them, so far finding ~700 points to ~1,000 points nice and its hard to stick a decent sized carrier in that, build a scouting fleet around it and still have something able to do a bit of damage.

in effect if I wanted to play “Warhammer: ww2 Navy” I would, the rest of the rules are better than that. I’d go for “house rules” but not much chance locally of that, so easier to avoid it as an issue.. so far the only other aircraft people have are the small amounts from the starter fleets but to date not seen them on the table..

Given I have enough 1:600 scale fleet air arm models to equip the actual fleet air arm probably not a huge issue.. bring on the stats for Lancasters, Wellingtons & Mosquitoes and will be easy to avoid air strikes totally.

[leopard]

as I noted you can rationalise that either way easily enough so no real issue there, just seems something that is perfect for a rulebook diagram for the next edition

[leopard]

DP armed escorts though do have longer range so an “outer perimeter” works, well sort of.. have found the FAQ and its slightly disappointing to see rules encouraging the “carpark” formation approach instead of taking great delight in punishing it. Guess this is where you need to pick your ships carefully and pay attention to movement to try to make it harder to swoop in.

have noted this as one of the many reasons I ditched “Cruel Seas”, the ability of a strike unit to start far enough out you can’t hit it, then in a single turn close & strike before you get a chance to fire is quite frankly ridiculous.

flak screen is something that should be operating constantly, when even a dedicated flak cruiser (say AD: 3 DP) is probably only lobbing a single dice (half, rounded down) when its doing its job perhaps something is a tad wrong somewhere. Makes the few ships that do have ranged AA other than DP more useful, but only as outer screens.

[leopard]

oh aware you can build a fleet round it, though to be honest I try not to “optimise” a list knowing what my opponent has. I do have a reasonable destroyer compliment (9 of the beasties) which I figure are perfect for facing off v IJN torpedoes as they are almost literally not worth the torpedo shot – IJN greatest weakness seems to be a high density of points on some otherwise not very robust hulls leading to a shortage of guns.

its just literally I find the idea of a mechanic where your opponent can do zero to counter it such as any form of ‘pre game’ weapons strikes with unlimited range a bit “moRe rAndOM iS MorE FuN” stuff which frankly sucks, I like it to be my own mistakes and opponents better tactics that kill me, not a random dice roll.

torpedoes being nasty up close makes sense, though quite why the T-93 is more accurate at range than anyone elses is curious – give them a high “extreme” range but similar closer range bands as anyone else.. but thats just the way I see it.. “Wakeless” works exactly as it should incidentally, thats evil..

usual opponent loves the Mogami class.. I’m hoping to introduce them to my Royal Navy destroyer group tomorrow, reckon out scouting will be simple and then there is a lot of juicy juicy points in a pair of expensive and not well armoured hulls..

 

*evil laugh*

[leopard]

not sure on the waterloo version but have played the ACW version and found a massive problem – the game is BP, that bit works, the issue is the change of scale – units have gone from 28mm to ~12mm, no issues, they look really nice. the models have gotten smaller, you have gotten more of them, but the formation width hasn’t really changed – which in itself hardly matters except the command radius is now in cm..

for that to work the units need to be scaled in width as well.

we had a test game with three infantry and an artillery unit and a commander, on a 6’x4′ table, and it felt a bit cramped, could have had at most twice that, but the command ranges crippled it.

if you also downscale the unit widths it works fine

do think bases 40mm wide would have been much better, you are then compatible with other sets of rules more generally, and given the quality of the plastic models becomes very attractive to use warlord models elsewhere

[leopard]

don’t see any risk for the IJN, yes a lower chance of a hit – but not everything has to fire the salvo, and the chance to trade one load from one side for a chance to perhaps remove a key unit seems well worth it.

I see why it has to be unlimited range to “work” or its a waste of words, but personally yes the long lance had range, but short of hitting stuff that didn’t know about it the chances of a hit were tiny and to be honest I’d give them normal ranges in game for the normal hit chances and then let them fan salvo at any time up to the horizon, but with a positive modifier v things not moving faster than say 3″

[leopard]

Not seen the changes to DP guns.. only really have had one test airstrike that included a single DP equipped destroyer so it worked but not amazingly well.. will have a look at the changes.

this is part of the point made elsewhere about what counts as moving over the escort, given its meant to be just a single point

I *hate* gamey stuff like this, really spoils the immersion when you stop thinking like a ships captain and start thinking like a Speeece Murine

[leopard]

@Enioch, that helps cheers, not sure its “over thinking it” when the game gives you a counter to ask “so where do I actually put this?”, very easy to resolve but should really have been picked up in testing.

note that still leaves the question of can you shoot between the smoke template and the bridge of the ship laying it?

[leopard]

for sure as an intro, I moved on reasonably quickly to another game I won’t mention here thats closer to a simulation, that said that does bog down quite quickly in larger games.

Almost needs two sets of air rules, the “abstract” set for games with combined ops where airpower is a boost for a fleet but not the focus, and a more detailed version for stuff like Midway carrier strikes

[leopard]

house rules document is a nice read, does assume you can actually get people to use something unofficial (this is a issue locally, hard enough to get an “official FAQ” used), and seem to make the game a lot better.

cheat sheets useful too, oh for games to have a very clear “turn sequence” (ideally with page references)

[leopard]

must have been a seriously amazing flak gun design to be able to fire further along the length of the ship than across its width…

thats practically needing a white cat & diamond collar level of ingenuity

using the base for this sort of thing, when literally everything else ignores the base, is somewhat unfortunate.

doesn’t “feel right” that say a small destroyer “Local: 1” alongside, as in right alongside, say a battleship with “Local: 10” is both close enough to block a dive bomber striking the battleship while at the same time too far away for the flak the battleship is presumably putting up to have any effect  – especially when the larger DP flak guns have quite considerable range, just a curious omission, give “local” a range (say 2″?) and then say you can always fire at something attacking you directly – also as a side effect makes it quite easy to then allow the AA battery to also fire at MTB that stray too close

[leopard]

will check that out thanks, the over the horizon stuff is the pre-game torpedo strike where they things can not only shoot further than Yamato could fire its guns, but can also fire further than they can fire during the game – all of which is “meah” but its the way the opponent can do absolutely nothing about it and could end up starting with a critical unit dead or half dead.

its up there with “on a dice roll of a six one of your units exploded on the way to the battle”, there are times such randomness doesn’t make a game better

[leopard]

yes have seen a bit of snark reading some other answers – its not a cheap rulebook and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect this sort of thing to be actually covered without being accused of “rules lawyering” – presumably someone during play testing asked “so where does this smoke go exactly then?” – given its a flat marker sticking it under the model isn’t exactly hard.

don’t see this as rules being tight or slack, more a case of being incomplete and a very typical sign that “playtesting” has been done by people too familiar with the rules “so not realising this isn’t there” or a company going “thats far too trivial to worry about”, which is a pity.

there are no stupid questions, though I can be an ingenious inquisitive idiot sometimes

I have seen much more “detailed” sets of rules that also forget stuff like this, and seen several companies go “you are over thinking this”, while being unable or unwilling to answer the question

[Author]

Posts