Objectives and First Ideas

[miketr]

P3D, Korpen and Myself (miketr) are going to work on a combat system for the sim.

The idea will be to come up with something that we can use the output of the Spring Sharp for ship details AND with as few rules changes as possible.

As P3D suggested we should make use of the open materials.

SeeKrieg IV 
http://www.seekrieg.com/Seekrieg4DownloadPage1.htm

And

Seas of War
http://www.panzer-war.com/Seas%20of%20War/Seaspage1.html

Before we dive into things we should come to some type of agreement on what we want the system to do for us that these two systems do not do.

I myself have't used Seas of War so I will need to look it over before I can comment.

As to SeeKrieg IV we have the following issues.

1) Ships ability to take damage is too generic... A 10,000 ton PDN build in 1890 takes just as many DP to sink as a 10,000 ton CA built in 1925.

2) Ships are too fragile...  A 1,000 ton DD can take 1 6" round and then a stiff breaze will sink it.

3) The system needs more detail to cover other locations such as turret face vs. roof vs. barette.

4) To hit tables need to be reconciled with our fire control system.

5) We need better range / penetration tables to cover all the non standard guns we have.  Plus our odd shell weights.

Michael

[P3D]

Seas of war should be relevant as the penetration model is based on Nathan Okun's work, but have other stuff which might be inspirational.

IMO the battlesim should be on the detailed side on the first attempt - with simplifying it down later as necessary.

First would be to decide what units should be used. I favor the yard(ft)-inch one, it has more historical feeling, also 1nm can be declared to be 2000 yards exactly.

Components

a/ Operational/tactical considerations
Seekrieg have IMO a good weather model, we should have sg like that
Where we do not need details is the "tactical and maneuver" aspect. For tabletop person vs person games that's essential, for third-person conducted battles it is unnecessary.

b/ hit chance models
I working on the gunnery a bit, and have some ideas to keep it simple (as few dices rolls as possible) not sacrificing physical accuracy. SoW is lacking in this respect - more than SKIV for sure

Torpedoes - I'd like to have something like SoW's geometrical probability model. The torpedoes are fired in a given arc (30* iirc) in an even distribution. If the ship is in the arc when the torpedoes reach the distance, chance to hit is the 'arc' of the ship wrt. the launcher (length/distance) divided by 30* (=pi/6 radian). SoW is metric, so redoing the tables in yards won't be plagiarism.

c/ hit location
I did this based on SS2, a lot of work for each ship - but have to be done to make difference between ships.

d/ Hit effects
A can of worms.
I think the 'hit points' plus critical hits is good. the HP/structural points should be based on the ship's survivability expressed in kg/lbs of shells (perhaps modified by a multiplier).
Also I'd add a separate scale for flotation (for the torpedo damages).
Penetration model based on NaAB/facehard and some ideas from SoW - now the Q is how detailed we want to go
Fire/explosions and penetration effects should be treated as additional structural damage

e/ small crafts and planes
You put a given amount of shell in a given volume filling it, and the plane has some chance to meet each projectile.

[miketr]

IMO the battlesim should be on the detailed side on the first attempt - with simplifying it down later as necessary.

The problem with too much detail is overload of the other players and outselves.  Or to put it another way if we attempt to do too much we risk gettin nothing done.

First would be to decide what units should be used. I favor the yard(ft)-inch one, it has more historical feeling, also 1nm can be declared to be 2000 yards exactly.

I am not too worried about game scale as people can come up with their own stuff to fit what mini's / chits that have.  I have 1" and 1/2" chits so I would odds are use an inch based system for any fight I do.

Components

a/ Operational/tactical considerations
Seekrieg have IMO a good weather model, we should have sg like that
Where we do not need details is the "tactical and maneuver" aspect. For tabletop person vs person games that's essential, for third-person conducted battles it is unnecessary.

Agreed...

b/ hit chance models
I working on the gunnery a bit, and have some ideas to keep it simple (as few dices rolls as possible) not sacrificing physical accuracy. SoW is lacking in this respect - more than SKIV for sure

The issue is number of die rolls and number of charts.  To few to start is better than too many to start IMHO.

Torpedoes - I'd like to have something like SoW's geometrical probability model. The torpedoes are fired in a given arc (30* iirc) in an even distribution. If the ship is in the arc when the torpedoes reach the distance, chance to hit is the 'arc' of the ship wrt. the launcher (length/distance) divided by 30* (=pi/6 radian). SoW is metric, so redoing the tables in yards won't be plagiarism.

I will have to look at it before I can say anything about it.  But I will say I have reservations about SKIV as it appears to generate too many hits even if you figure in the really short range.  I will try the two systems side by side...

c/ hit location
I did this based on SS2, a lot of work for each ship - but have to be done to make difference between ships.

God no...  Their are too many ships in navalism and it would be waaaay to much work both to generate the tables let alone to keep track of them in a battle.  I agree we should generate a better set of location tables but from a purely practical matter we have no choice but to use a generic location system.  If we have a truely massive fleet battle with 50 or 60 ships on a side it would take forever to fight out.  Its one thing if we had massive PC support (IE doing this as a computer game).

d/ Hit effects
A can of worms.
I think the 'hit points' plus critical hits is good. the HP/structural points should be based on the ship's survivability expressed in kg/lbs of shells (perhaps modified by a multiplier).
Also I'd add a separate scale for flotation (for the torpedo damages).
Penetration model based on NaAB/facehard and some ideas from SoW - now the Q is how detailed we want to go
Fire/explosions and penetration effects should be treated as additional structural damage

That would be logical on first glance but I wonder how much we can trust SS's weight to sunk out put; I don't understand what its based on.  Its part of the reason I would like a HP based on light displacement.  The other is we already use light displacement for costs so that would appear to be a logical place to start.

I agree we are going to have to go to NAaB for penetration there is just no way around it.  As to effects if we are going to go with a pure DP system and not a location based damaged system then having penetration doing some multiplier of additional damage would make the most sense.  Fires agree... its how SKIV does it.

A question is we would need to match up the shell selections in NAaB vs. our shell tech.  The result would be a set of tables for guns with different shells which would generate a lot of paper work.  Which pushes us towards the same problem of the location tables; of course all systems have generic for the ships and specific the guns.

I will be frank I don't know how to use NAaB very well and only have a generic knowledge of  the how and why's of the different generations of shells.

e/ small crafts and planes
You put a given amount of shell in a given volume filling it, and the plane has some chance to meet each projectile.

Nod....

Michael

[Korpen]

I will have to look at it before I can say anything about it.  But I will say I have reservations about SKIV as it appears to generate too many hits even if you figure in the really short range.  I will try the two systems side by side...

I never really done naval tabletop gameing (to my sorrow), so will refrain from commenting on most of those aspects apart from this.
Most system seems to overestimate the effects of torpedoes; most ww1 era torpedoes were extremely unlikely to function at impact at anything over 45 degrees. If some of the effects in the second pacific war was based on SoW, then it generates FAR too many hits.
Torpedoes could be effective, but they were no superweapons.

That would be logical on first glance but I wonder how much we can trust SS's weight to sunk out put; I don't understand what its based on.  Its part of the reason I would like a HP based on light displacement.  The other is we already use light displacement for costs so that would appear to be a logical place to start.

The SS survivability numbers are pretty much sorely based on the space/compartmentation. Allot of empty space within the "normal" section of the hull, and you get high numbers.

A question is we would need to match up the shell selections in NAaB vs. our shell tech.  The result would be a set of tables for guns with different shells which would generate a lot of paper work.  Which pushes us towards the same problem of the location tables; of course all systems have generic for the ships and specific the guns.

I will be frank I don't know how to use NAaB very well and only have a generic knowledge of  the how and why's of the different generations of shells.

Not really certain it would really be all that many (most guns are quite similar, for example I think all 35cm guns uses 600kg shells), and personally I do not see having a lot of tables, as I can see few situations were allot of different guns of the same type would be present at the same time. However if we start adding in SAP shells and the like it can become a few tabels...

As for NAaB and shells, we have a standard for caped, so it is AP, Improved APC and SAP that needs a standard, will fiddle around and give suggestions.

First would be to decide what units should be used. I favor the yard(ft)-inch one, it has more historical feeling, also 1nm can be declared to be 2000 yards exactly.

Think that a hm scal would work fine, both for the historic feeling (as when reading old battle reports) and for the fact that one do not need a calculator at hand to have any idea of what is happening.

[P3D]

Mike,
About hit locations, I am thinking about creating an excel sheet, you plug in some ss2 parameters, it gives you the hit location table.

Korpen,
basically you want metric units, I want imperial (although I grew up in Europe).

Gun tables
There are two main approaches regarding penetration.
a) round thickness figures and not so round distance figures
12"@8300yards, 11"@9200 etc. Resolution is 1" and 100 yards
b) round distance figures, not so round thickness
11.5"@9000yards, 12"@8500, 12.5"@9000 etc..
Resolution is, say, 500 or 1000 y (or m) and 1cm or 0.5"

SoW uses a), I have the feeling that b) might be a bit simpler.

[miketr]

Mike,
About hit locations, I am thinking about creating an excel sheet, you plug in some ss2 parameters, it gives you the hit location table.

That might be functional...  Length and average freeboard?

Gun tables
There are two main approaches regarding penetration.
a) round thickness figures and not so round distance figures
12"@8300yards, 11"@9200 etc. Resolution is 1" and 100 yards
b) round distance figures, not so round thickness
11.5"@9000yards, 12"@8500, 12.5"@9000 etc..
Resolution is, say, 500 or 1000 y (or m) and 1cm or 0.5"

SoW uses a), I have the feeling that b) might be a bit simpler.

I would suggest B and say a 1,000 yards.

As to the yard vs. meter debate...  I don't care that much, I would rather yards but... A yard is 0.91 meter and a meter is 1.09 yards...  Sure over big distances the difference will add up but I am not going to loose any sleep over either selection.

Michael

[RAM]

In most of this things, I honestly can't help. I've never played tabletop wargames vs anyone (not enough wargame freaks around here in spain, it seems...sad but true), and my experience in gaming naval battles comes from computers only so...


However:

1) Ships ability to take damage is too generic... A 10,000 ton PDN build in 1890 takes just as many DP to sink as a 10,000 ton CA built in 1925

This is easy as it gets. Apply modifiers. Ships built with BB/BC/AC architecture get a bonus over the ships built with cruiser architecture, while this get bonus over those with DD/TB/merchant architecture.

Then apply tech-related bonus within each class. For instance:

BB/AC Architecture
1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate. Damage modifier 1.
1890: Mixed main armament or AQY with double turrets+casemates. Damage modifier 1.05.
1904: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets, superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs), improved turret hydraulics,
Torpedo Bulkheads. Damage modifier 1.15
1906: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), triple turrets. Damage modifier 1.20.
1912: Futuristic:  Quadruple turrets. Damage modifier 1.25

(from predreads to dreadnoughts there's a .10 difference because of better attention to subdivision in the latter ships).

Do the same with CL and DD architectures. IN the end you get a modifier for class of ship, and you get another modifier for how modern the ship is. Multiply SS2's figures for damage by both modifiers, and voila, you got the "real" DPs the ship has.

[miketr]

Who is going to do what, when and how?

Michael

[P3D]

I will try to post a preliminary hit chance table during the weekend.

[P3D]

I realized what would be the most important question.
Do we really want a classical table&dice simulation?
Making an excel sheet or even writing a program has several advantages. Besides allowing to use proper formulas not just approximations in tables.
At the minimum, it would give you the number of hits for entering the range.

[miketr]

I think a classic table is the best solution as that way other people on the forum who don't use such things can understand / look at things without trouble.

Michael

[Nobody]

I don't know Seekrieg yet, but I tried Seas of War last December with my brother. It was fun but it took us forever. Furthermore we unsure how to interpret the rules several times an found many things we wanted to change. The space requirement was also a problem which meant we played it at a tree times smaller scale.
Because of this I stared to develop a computer game version of the game. Although it worked my approach was too complicated for further development and I dumped it. I wanted to start from scratch but nothing was done since.
Anyway, maybe could join forces and write our own game fitting our needs?

Btw, I would prefer metric units for everything except guns which are originally measured in inches. My reasoning is quite simple: most imperial units can be easily transformed to metric without losses using ~2 digits more, but transferring metric to imperial you will nearly always loose something. It also simplifies scientific calculations, if necessary.