A comparison

[Enioch]

So…

Working with the official, published cards here:

Kongo: 375 points, 8 guns, 1 AD per gun, +1 AP, 2 DD per barrel.

New Mexico: 395 points, 12 guns, 2 AD per gun, +2 AP, 3 DD per barrel.

New Mex also has better armor, more health, more aircraft. The only place where she’s inferior to the Kongo is the speed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that IRL the New Mex would not be a better slugfester than the Kongo. But I would like some explanation as to why she should be worth only 5% more fleet points when she’s bringing 225% of the Kongo’s damage output to the fight.

Explain please.

[Shrokins]

Yes, I wouldn’t use the Kongō in a match where my life or fortune was as stake. I think there’s lots of balancing left to be done in the game, so the points in general have to be taken with a grain of salt. The Kongō can’t be worth much more than 300, I’d think, if that. She doesn’t add more to your force than a 280-point Mogami-class or 275-point Shōkaku-class. If you fight the Kongō vs. the Mogami one on one, the Mogami will almost always win. (At least on a 3×4-foot mat; the Kongō would do better with unlimited room to run away.) Two Kongō battlecruisers vs. one US dreadnought would be a close fight.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Shrokins.

[Nat]

because there are a couple of weird decisions and fudging of points across the board…

I can see in the beta a clear points cut for later launched ships…. the essex class carrier compared to the yorktown class loses 2 flights, gains a 2nd set of DP light guns (doubling the shots) has ranged AA, better local, has advance radar, nearly 20 more hull, has 3+ armour instead of 6+, better torpedo belt and is 10 points cheeper????  How does that equal out??

then you look at the japanes heavy cruisers… the myoko class is 5 points cheeper than the mogami and only misses agile… the difference between Tone & myoko is the tone is missing 1 turret & has 3 more aircraft.. yet is 25 points cheeper still

[invisible officer]

I guess that the pts of Essex class are influenced by number of ships available. With the few CV available in 41/42 they should be more expensive in a historical based game.

 

Well, my friends and I never care for points. Using historical OOB.   Points systems all give just an illusion of ballanced game.

[Shrokins]

It’d be interesting to test the Kongo-class at a cheaper cost: 300 instead of 375. Anyone up for a match commanding two Kongos? We’d count it as a 600 point force, instead of 750. As opposition, I’d bring the USS Arizona, USS Indianapolis, and a Fletcher (590 points). According to the game’s official points, you’d have a 27% advantage, but I think it would be a heckuva fight.

 

[clockwork81]

I agree. The Kongo is unwhelming compared to the New Mexico.

[Enioch]

Also, can we please discuss Depth Charge and Sub hunter availability?

Sure, not all DDs had good sonar. Sure, a Clemson probably cannot detect subs that are Running Deep. Sure, Japanese DDs were notoriously bad at detecting subs before a big ship went boom. Sure, I’d be happy to see variation in Sub Hunter availability.

Kindly explain to me why the Clemson doesn’t have DCs. When the first shots fired against the Japanese by an American ship in WW2 were depth-charges dropped by USS Ward, a four-stacker.

In fact, you know what? Kindly explain to me why any destroyer doesn’t carry DCs. Explain to me why the Kageros don’t, when they historically carried exactly the same number of boombarrels the Fubukis did.

*Makes annoyed mind-blowing gestures and noises*

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Enioch.

[Nat]

I’m hoping for just about every card they’ve already released to be corrected with the rules in the main rule book…..

 

or at least give us the points to ‘refit’ the destroyers in to carrying depth charges…. (and look, we’re back to asking about proof reading! :p)

[Eumerin]

The wording on the Clemson card indicates that it’s a specific configuration – Destroyer (Escort). The card also indicates that there are other Clemson configurations available at http://www.victoryatsea.co.uk

That particular web address does take you to a working website, though at the moment the only Victory At Sea content is advertising for the starter, and a link to the Warlord Web Store. But it appears that the intent is that other Clemson-class variants will be posted there at some point in the near future, and presumably most of those variants will be kitted out for anti-submarine work.

Failing that, I would imagine that we’ll get other Clemson versions when the US fleet list is published.

And for what it’s worth, yes, I would have thought that something configured as a “Destroyer (Escort)” would have anti-submarine equipment. But apparently that’s not the case here.

[Author]

Posts