Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Beatty was admittedly rash or more politely aggressive -- that was sort of his trademark, and the reason he was ultimately elevated to the command of the GF -- but I feel that the loss of battlecruisers at Jutland couldn't be laid at his feet. He *engaged* as all British commanders were expected to do, and he had superior numbers. The British BCs were particularly thin on armor compared to the much more stalwart German BCs, and that was by design. The cordite handling flaw just had not been perceived by the British to be the major problem it turned out to be (compared to similar German problem realized due to Seydlitz at Dogger Bank). And even after the BCs at Jutland, Hood was lost due to a similar weakness. But then the British tend to condemn any sea commander who doesn't win regardless of the reason. That is the effect of their tradition of naval dominance.

warspite1

I don't have a problem with aggressive commanders. The criticism of Beatty goes much, much deeper than the fact he lost three battlecruisers under his command - as unfortunate as that was and for which he can take a share of the blame since the British knew of the problem from an episode with (HMS Kent?) earlier in the war.

His inability to learn anything from earlier engagements and his refusal to remove his clearly unfit Flat-Lieutenant were costly errors, but his whole handling of the 5th Battle Squadron - from the time the four ships fell under his command, his deployment of those ships and then his handling of the squadron once at sea with his battlecruiser squadron was crucial to what happened at Jutland.

As for the ships, the German ships were well constructed and better armoured, but there is nothing to suggest that (had it not been for the cordite handling issue) the British ships would have been less likely to survive. Indeed a study at Southampton University(?) showed this not to be the case.

They compared Queen Mary with Seydlitz. Queen Mary had just one water tight bulkhead less (despite the oft repeated line that the German ships were so much better compartmentalised). They then used a computer program and a mock up of the Queen Mary's hull, and subjected the hull to exactly the same damage (including the torpedo) that Seydlitz suffered (the Germans photographed every hit taken by their ships) to see if she would sink. The Queen Mary, like the Seydlitz, did not sink. Norman Friedman (who knows something about ships!) said that had it not been for the explosions, it is likely the British would have lost no battlecruisers that day....

As for the loss of Hood, yes another battlecruiser, yes a catastrophic explosion - but the circumstances were quite different - e.g. the construction of the ships and the tightening up of cordite handling. Hood's loss was more to do with advances in gunnery and the greater distances involved that made her - with her weak deck armour - vulnerable to plunging shell fire.

Yes, well, somehow the British doing their own "tests" and concluding their ships are just as bloody good as the German's doesn't ring too credible to me. Just saying.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Yes, well, somehow the British doing their own "tests" and concluding their ships are just as bloody good as the German's doesn't ring too credible to me. Just saying.

warspite1

'The British doing their own tests' - why do you assume that because someone is of one nationality they are not interested in the truth; only to show others of the same nationality are the best?

'their ships are just as bloody good as the German's'???? - but that's not what these scientists set out to prove and not what they did prove.

But no problem, if you choose to believe the experiment was false and the scientists were lying, if you choose to believe that the respected American naval historian Norman Friedman doesn't know what he's talking about, if you choose to believe HMS Hood was lost for the same reason as the battlecruisers at Jutland and if you believe Beatty was a worthy Admiral then that's your view.

This has been interesting. Maybe we can continue this in another thread, and get this thread back to the awesome Collectors Edition?

Are CL's now part of Ships in Flames and no longer a separate optional?

CLiF is still a separate option. There's a table in the rules giving varying ASW values depending on whether you play Classic, SiF, or SiF + CLiF.

Paul, are you aware of the latest rules of WIF? As usual, I don't have time to be up to date of all the updates and changes, so I tend to believe what I am shown in the rules, but the guy who knows more usually omits whatever info doesn't suit him.

I mean, in the ASW values he showed me rules/a table with varying ASW values, but he never mentioned that it depended in the version we were playing, and that may be very important... [X(]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Paul, are you aware of the latest rules of WIF? As usual, I don't have time to be up to date of all the updates and changes, so I tend to believe what I am shown in the rules, but the guy who knows more usually omits whatever info doesn't suit him.

I mean, in the ASW values he showed me rules/a table with varying ASW values, but he never mentioned that it depended in the version we were playing, and that may be very important... [X(]

I didn't know about the incomplete conquest variable roll for survivors so we can all learn something at some point or another.

Here is the ASW table from CE. Quite variable depending on option chosen although the designer said the objective is to keep net ASW generally the same across all options.

'WiF' is WiF Classic which has CL counters. If you play CLiF, I think you only do so in addition to SiF (not positive, never play CLiF myself) so with CLiF, I think the Classic CLs are set aside. So choices would be:
Play Classic and use WiF line.
Play SiF and use the SiF line.
Play SiF plus CLiF and only use the CLiF line.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Ok, thanks! What was throwing me was that CL line in both WiF and CliF option 6. I guess WiF includes CLs?


Interesting to note that no matter what option is played BB's not longer contribute to ASW and that CP's now, regardless of year and country contribute 1/5 ASW (round down) versus 1/2 in 1942 and later for CW and USA.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Ok, thanks! What was throwing me was that CL line in both WiF and CliF option 6. I guess WiF includes CLs?


Interesting to note that no matter what option is played BB's not longer contribute to ASW and that CP's now, regardless of year and country contribute 1/5 ASW (round down) versus 1/2 in 1942 and later for CW and USA.

Just be aware that there is an error in that table.

From the errata sheet

11.5.10, ASW Factors chart – When playing CliF option 6, each CA only ever has 1 ASW factor (not 4 in ’43 as shown in the chart). Please note the chart on the West Europe map is correct.

Brian

Good point. I saw that post somewhere. The CA line with CLiF should be 1-1-1. Sorry for the misinformation.

And... yes, Classic WiF has CL units.

Here is the corrected table:

Thanks a lot. I had seen the table (my mate showed it to me when we were doing naval combat) but I was thinking of convoys ASW (variable) power. I misunderstood the comment, as per the table it's 1-1-1 (not variable).

But it's kind of messy , thanks for the comments and the errata.

Note: Sure we can learn from each other as far as rules are still new, I guess later you'll soon get far before me because so many changes demoralize me and I tend not to read the whole rulebook ¡again! and read only the specific rule for the phase that we have doubts about. Hence I find many unwanted surprises...

Losses inflicted by the SUB side may be any included naval unit if the SUB player spends 3 surprise points. Otherwise every odd (1st, 3rd, 5th etc.) loss must be convoy points (CoiF option 7: including ASW, see 22.16); and every even loss must be either convoy points (CoiF option 7: including ASW), a CV or an SCS in the 0 sea-box section (owner’s choice). Once there are no further convoys to suffer losses, all remaining losses inflicted by the subs are ignored.

"every even loss must be either convoy points (CoiFoption 7: including ASW), a CV or an SCS in the 0 sea-box section (owner’s choice)" -- Interesting ... now it appears that the convoy defender can take ships as losses instead of CP's if he has escorts in the 0-box and so chooses.

It's more of a change than that. Each result affects 3 CPs and CPs can be damaged (and then possibly abort before being damaged again). So you can get into some pretty interesting choices as both the defender choosing the even numbered results or either player deciding on the use of surprise points to choose a target.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's more of a change than that. Each result affects 3 CPs and CPs can be damaged (and then possibly abort before being damaged again). So you can get into some pretty interesting choices as both the defender choosing the even numbered results or either player deciding on the use of surprise points to choose a target.

So a D would now damage 3 CP's instead of sinking 1? And an X would sink 3 instead of 2? What are the consequences of a damaged CP?

Yes.

They get aborted at the end of combat or sunk with a second 'D' like any other naval unit (no saving rolls though, all results are automatically applied to CPs). BTW the '3 CPs per' is SiF. In Classic, it is 5 per which many don't like considering LOS and low capacity CP chains. Some Classic players add SiF CPs only!

They cost 1 each to build and take 4 turns like always. Repair takes 2 turns and cost is One BP for repairing 1 or 2, Two BPs for repairing 3, 4 or 5. 'Economies of scale' is the the WiFZen for that I guess (although really the designer wanted greater parallel between Classic and SiF).

Received my Deluxe Collectors Edition just over a week ago and am blown away by the quality of the mounted maps, detailing on the counter sheets, and the Rules and Guide plus tables. Absolutely the best quality board game I’ve seen.

https://www.a-d-g.com.au/blogs/news/wor ... ersheet-55

One aspect of the boardgame that I'm enjoying is allocation of convoy points (and tankers, using Convoys in Flames). The tankers add interest (for me anyway), and the production/convoy chain is easy to visualize with the maps and counters right in front of me.

Right now I'm working on France's initial naval move (in Global War), and I think I can ship every resource except the New Caledonia one. But to ship the oil from Iraq to France, I'd have to convert for convoys to two tankers; I'm debating whether to do that or just save the oil in Lebanon or Egypt, freeing up 4 CPs potentially to hide in New Caledonia (to become Free French, one hopes).