From: moellerc@aol.com (MOELLER C) Subject: The Great War at Sea The following are discussions of Mike Bennighof's The Great War at Sea, culled from Avalanche Games' bulletin board on AOL. TGWaS is one of the best, and most repeatedly played games in my collection. It's exhaustively researched and a knuckle-biter to boot. I had several rules questions which the Avalanche folks have answered with admirable patience. While some folks don't seem to have problems with the rules (hey, maybe it's just me), the consensus is that it's a terrific game that (surprise!) really PLAYS! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Some more TGWaS questions Date: 96-10-03 09:56:28 EDT From: MOELLER C We played the first Eastern Scenario of TGWaS last night. Great game. Great graphics. We did have some questions, however. If you would be so kind? 1. The Russian Z-Class destroyers have no tertiary guns (no guns of any kind!). Does this mean that they are unharmed by ANY weapon mount hit outside of a torpedo hit (6.93)? With the best part of the bell curve given over to weapon mount hits, that makes these Z-Class destroyers really hard to kill. The Breslau landed three hits... all against weapon mounts...all had no-effect. 1. can a ship rearm and refuel simultaneously? can any number of ships refuel/rearm at the same port simultaneously? 3. What happens when an off-board raider crosses a mined hex-side? That's it for now! Thanks for your help! Christopher Moeller xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:Some more TGWaS questions Date: 96-10-03 17:22:08 EDT From: AvlchPress Christopher, Glad you're enjoying the game. Some answers for you: 1. The Russian Z-Class destroyers have no tertiary guns (no guns of any kind!). Does this mean that they are unharmed by ANY weapon mount hit outside of a torpedo hit (6.93)? With the best part of the bell curve given over to weapon mount hits, that makes these Z-Class destroyers really hard to kill. The Breslau landed three hits... all against weapon mounts...all had no-effect. This was one area we wrestled with a long time and finally justified it to ourselves as giving the small ships a benefit for their tiny size. I'm still not entirely comfortable with that, but it worked. On the opposite extreme, counting all armament hits as hull hits would doom them. You might want to experiment with counting tertiary hits as hull hits, and ignoring primary and secondary hits. 1. can a ship rearm and refuel simultaneously? can any number of ships refuel/rearm at the same port simultaneously? yes and yes (but not from a collier). In actuality really large fleets probably should be limited, especially in tiny ports like Corfu, but I did not want to add another rule. 3. What happens when an off-board raider crosses a mined hex-side? Ah ... you've found one of the game-isms. Nothing happens. Now, something probably SHOULD happen, but given the "blind" aspect of the game we could not see how to do so without forcing one or both players to tip their hand on what should be secret info. We did talk about this one an awful lot and finally decided to give off-board raiders magical protection from mines. Note that the raiders have to "uncloak" to do any damage, so you can always mine potential target zones. We probably should have included some sort of optional rule allowing the mine owner to declare where his fields are if he wishes, thus at least channeling off-map raiders. Thanks again for your thoughtful questions. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:Some more TGWaS questions Date: 96-10-04 11:02:40 EDT From: MOELLER C Thanks for you response Mike, may I offer some "fixes" (I hesitate to call them that...) that we have instituted? 1. Re: weapon hits against non-existent mounts: We decided to make the attacker roll a second "to hit" roll for each of these type of hits. If the second "to hit" roll misses, there is no effect (as would normally be the case). If the second hit roll hits, it becomes a hull hit (with armor penetration restrictions continuing to apply). 2. Re: Raiders hitting mines: We played it the way you describe in your response, with Raiders being able to slip through minefields, as we couldn't see a better solution. To tell the truth, however, having played & admired Black Sea Fleet (which didn't have off-board forces), we aren't really crazy about the off-board Raiders in TGWaS. I didn't have to contend with them, but my opponent had to keep track of three "invisible" fleets, their coaling situation and their relative position on the board (he had a second map set up out of sight, with his Raiders moving on that map). We only have a 3-4 hour chunk of time to play each week, so, in the interest of simplicity and speed of play, we've decided to keep our raiders on-map, with each Raider "generating" a dummy fleet (so that in Eastern Scenario #1, the Central Powers would have three dummy's zipping around). I appreciate your intent with the hidden fleet rule, and I'm sure many of your customers prefer that approach. It was exciting when my torpedo destroyers stumbled onto some Turkish raiders, but overall we felt the advantages were outweighed by the degradation to playability (we also discarded "long battle" considerations for the same reason). For most ships, coal limitations mean that you have to make hard choices about which enemy fleets you're going to chase anyway, so that a couple of bogus fleet counters should cause adequate confusion. I can't wait to sail the Austrian navy (my heritage showing?). Again, a wonderful game on a long overdue subject (Salvo II is nowhere in the same league... almost doesn't classify as a finished game). Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:Some more TGWaS questions Date: 96-10-04 13:51:57 EDT From: AvlchPress Christopher, Your modifications seem to fit in well. Brian Knipple reminded me last night that his original idea on raiders and mines was to re-trace the raider's path to see if they ran through any minefields, and re-set the game if they were damaged/sunk there. I thought that method too cumbersome, but players can certainly try it out. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: 2nd Salvo of GWaS questions! Date: 96-10-07 11:40:04 EDT From: MOELLER C A few more questions re: TGWaS 1. As we understand the rules, you can't abort part of a fleet to head home for refueling. Is this correct? During a desperate end-of-game chase, we had several fleets which were dropping off their dead-in-the-water destroyers as they ran out of coal rather than send them home for refueling. Which was standard practice for fleets in this period? Towing destroyers back to port after every campaign or splitting them off when their coal got low? 2. Example: Fleet 1 has orders to shell this turn. Enemy Fleet #2 searches for and finds Fleet #1. Is Fleet #1's bombardment for that turn counted for VP's or is it interrupted by the resulting battle? 3. Regarding attacks against fleets in port: a) Do you have to search for them before you can attack them? b) Can they refuel and reload while they're being attacked? c) Were shore batteries a factor during this period? d) If a player in a friendly port zone doesn't actually write "in port" or "refueling" on his plot is he considered to be at sea in the port zone (and thus not penalized for being in port)? That's it for now! We played Scenario 10 last night with three players (2 Russians: 1 for the Sevastopol fleets, 1 for the Batumi fleet). The German U-Boats scored a hit on one of the Russian cruisers early in the game, and she spent the whole scenario trying to repair. It was terrifically frustrating as the Russian, making daylight sightings at long range and watching the faster German ships waltz away (I've learned to resist the impulse to give chase with my speedy "Free CP Victory Points" z-boats)! About mid-game, there was a fantastic night duel between the Goeben and the Russian Batumi fleet. Both fleets were mauled and the Goeben finally ran for it. Okay, actually ONE more question.... during last night's game, Goeben cruised for 5 days, with three turns spent at her 2-zone speed, after which she was trapped with 1/8th fuel box remaining, trying to refuel at Samsun. She was battered into submission by the lone Ekaterina (who ran a terrific chase following the night battle, trailing coal-less destroyers in her wake). Is 5 days plus 12 (or so) hours at full speed really an accurate reflection of Goeben's at-sea range? Thanks again for your help. best, Christopher Moeller xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:2nd Salvo of GWaS questions Date: 96-10-08 18:53:52 EDT From: AvlchPress OK, here goes: 1. As we understand the rules, you can't abort part of a fleet to head home for refueling. Is this correct? During a desperate end-of-game chase, we had several fleets which were dropping off their dead-in-the-water destroyers as they ran out of coal rather than send them home for refueling. Which was standard practice for fleets in this period? Towing destroyers back to port after every campaign or splitting them off when their coal got low? Only if you are on an intercept or raid mission; then you can split the fleet and abort one of the new fleets. This was the standard practice for the period; rarely did admirals allow ships to "run dry" (rather than forbid this, as players should always be allowed to do stupid things, we tried to make it such a Bad Thing no one would want to let it happen, either). 2. Example: Fleet 1 has orders to shell this turn. Enemy Fleet #2 searches for and finds Fleet #1. Is Fleet #1's bombardment for that turn counted for VP's or is it interrupted by the resulting battle? No, see 9.1: "the ships performing the mission must remain there for one full turn without combat or movement." 3. Regarding attacks against fleets in port: a) Do you have to search for them before you can attack them? yes b) Can they refuel and reload while they're being attacked? no - see 10.4 c) Were shore batteries a factor during this period? yes - this is why enemy fleets cannot enter major ports. We did not want to include ship-to-shore exchanges of fire, though most ports will have some sort of field artillery nearby. d) If a player in a friendly port zone doesn't actually write "in port" or "refueling" on his plot is he considered to be at sea in the port zone (and thus not penalized for being in port)? At sea. Okay, actually ONE more question.... during last night's game, Goeben cruised for 5 days, with three turns spent at her 2-zone speed, after which she was trapped with 1/8th fuel box remaining, trying to refuel at Samsun. She was battered into submission by the lone Ekaterina (who ran a terrific chase following the night battle, trailing coal-less destroyers in her wake). Is 5 days plus 12 (or so) hours at full speed really an accurate reflection of Goeben's at-sea range? The steaming you describe sounds about right. German ships were built to operate in the North Sea only (the "protect trade and colonies" line being an outright lie) as a threat to Britain. A handful of later designs DID have much better range - see Derfflinger in the upcoming Vol. 2. For a ship designed for the sort of role Goeben played by default, see the Austrian CA04. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: The Great War at Sea Date: 96-10-12 21:14:28 EDT From: GamerJohn I have enjoyed this game and I like the system but both of the Scenarios that I and my friends have played don't seem to have been tested. Played Western Scenario 11 had some questions: 1. Why would the Austrians every move south of the Q hexes and release the other ships? 2. On the battle map it states: "Subtract one if target has no movement factors" this seems to say that if the attacking ship was at max range (not a German ship, British BB, Rus. BB, or Aus. BC, CL, or CA-04) then you could not hit the ship dead in the water, is that true? 3. If a battle started on a dusk turn and went to another round would this second round of battle be at night battle rules or would it stay as the dusk or light battle rules? Like I said we have enjoyed the game and the game system but we have played two scenarios and have found problems with both of them. But I and my friends really like the game. John xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:The Great War at Sea Date: 96-10-13 00:42:09 EDT From: AvlchPress Good to hear that folks are playing and enjoying the game. John: There may be 50 scenarios, but they've all been played many times before release. This particular one ("Horthy Takes Command" - the numbers were the very last thing to go in so I usually don't recognize them) was one of the most played; and was one of the demos at Historicon (Roger Taylor and I lost due to Allied perfidy). There is a reason for everything - not necessarily a good reason, mind you. 1. Why would the Austrians ever move south of the Q hexes and release the other ships? Arrogance or foolishness. It is not likely that a competent Austrian player will do so, but I hate idiot rules of "Austrian fleets may not move south of ..." Note that some VP zones are south of row Q; the Austrian can try to hit these and run before the Allies can catch him (actually a good bet as the Austrian). Watch for those minefields, though. If the Austrian loses ships to mines he really HAS to trigger Allied deployment, but he should be able to get away in time. This scenario probably didn't get fudged, but perhaps it should have; a few of them (those without a definite date, like Eastern 16) are weighted to make fleet actions more likely than I really felt was possible historically. 2. On the battle map it states: "Subtract one if target has no movement factors" this seems to say that if the attacking ship was at max range (not a German ship, British BB, Rus. BB, or Aus. BC, CL, or CA-04) then you could not hit the ship dead in the water, is that true? This is covered in the map errata (back of rule book); you should add one, no subtract. Perils of proofing by phone. 3. If a battle started on a dusk turn and went to another round would this second round of battle be at night battle rules or would it stay as the dusk or light battle rules? Ah, sneaky question. Stay at dusk. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Great Review at Sea Date: 96-10-14 02:04:37 EDT From: AvlchPress The new Berg's Review of Games is in, and a veritable love-fest it is from the sketch of Doc Decision on the cover (but who ARE those guys on either side of him?) to the Flowers of the Forest on the back. Some of the kindest words come from Uli Blennemann for The Great War at Sea. Uli says: "The Great War at Sea covers all of World War I (plus the Balkan wars and the Italo-Turkish War) at sea in the Med and the Black Sea in a staggering 41 scenarios, plus 9 tactical battle scenarios. The components, all done by Brien Miller, are outstanding. From the beautiful 1-inch counters with overhead views of capital ships, through the nice maps to the stylish boxcover, everything looks classy." And then he says: "There are also quite a few nice touches, showing the designer's attention to detail, like colliers and fuel consumption, leaders, shore bombardment, minelayers, seaplanes, national cooperation or airships. But the best features are the missions. In GWSea you do not simply steam out of port to engage the enemy battle fleet a la Jutland. No, in Bennighof's Med, you have to perform specific missions like raiding, minelaying or transporting to win. This adds a welcome dimension to the usual search and destroy flavor of previous games. Moreover, the 50 scenarios available practically ensures that playing GWSea won't degenerate into the 'been there, done that' staleness associated with far too many games today. "It all works quite smoothly, but is it fun? It sure is, especially with its built-in 'I'm cleverer than you' movement system. Great War at Sea is a nice addition to anyone's game library." It's always nice to get praise, and Berg even got the company name right. There is, by the way, no "Captain's Sleep Table"; the reference appear to be a Bergism missing a word or two. The only thing I'm left wondering is WHY Uli is so determined to send Horthy to the bottom ... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:The Great War at Sea Date: 96-10-15 22:09:46 EDT From: GamerJohn I know that some of the victory points are south of the 'Q' line but we don't have to send BB (Dreadnoughts) down there to get the victory points. By turn 8 we (the Central Powers) had 10 victory points and the Allies none. We brought our fleets (the BBs) south of the line just to have a great Naval battle though we lost because the Double Victory point loss for CP ships could not be over come by losses we gave to the allies. Once again, I want to state that my friends and I love the system and the game. John xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: re: Long Battles Date: 96-10-22 12:28:58 EST From: MOELLER C Just a quickie! 1. Are you limited to two rounds of tactical battle? We've had lots of times when ships of both players have remained on the tactical board after two full trips through the tactical sequence. If there is a two round limit, do you just replace the fleet counters on the operational map and go from there? If you can go through any number of rounds, ships caught in port by anything big are just plain dead. (strange aside here: Goeben and Merchant 1 were in port. The Russians detected the Goeben and shelled her into the ground, while on the neighboring wharf, the Merchant happily loaded coal). 2. re: Pursuits... we had a situation where the Breslau was detected by two Russian BB's (last daylight turn of the day). The Breslau gained initiative and scooted off the map without being fired upon. Despite their speed penalty, the Russians made their pursuit roll. The Breslau was automatically caught in the next sea zone (now it was a night turn), set up two areas away and sank her with 16 primary salvos! My question is, what justifies the poky old Russians "catching up" with the Breslau after she zipped away from them on the tactical map and plotted a full 2-zone move away from them in the next turn? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subj: Re:re: Long Battles Date: 96-10-24 23:14:34 EST From: AvlchPress Well, you asked for it: 1. Are you limited to two rounds of tactical battle? No; though the time shifts (6.47) are the same for anything greater than one round. If you can go through any number of rounds, ships caught in port by anything big are just plain dead. Yes; good reason not to be caught in a minor port. "Floating battery" ships (the Italian Dandolo in several scenarios comes to mind) can be worse than useless. (strange aside here: Goeben and Merchant 1 were in port. The Russians detected the Goeben and shelled her into the ground, while on the neighboring wharf, the Merchant happily loaded coal). Similar strangenesses abound during the war. 2. My question is, what justifies the poky old Russians "catching up" with the Breslau after she zipped away from them on the tactical map and plotted a full 2-zone move away from them in the next turn? Rarely in game designs should anything be automatic, just unlikely. Got to give the Russians at least some chance to catch the Breslau, or they won't try to chase her. She did blunder into slower forces more than once, including the famous "kiss my ass" message sent by Lt. Doenitz and answered with shellfire. In the man-or-machine question we usually tend to come down on the human factors side: any piece of equipment, no matter how superbly designed, is vulnerable to defeat if the human operator makes an error. So in this particular case we are not claiming that the Evstafi could catch the Breslau in a measured mile race; we are trying to show that Breslau's captain and crew are capable of letting a much inferior ship in terms of speed catch them if they are negligent. They do have a speed advantage which is sizable in game terms, but that's all it is, an advantage rather than a guarantee. ---------------------------- The MOELLER Web Site is currently at "http://ironempires.imperative.com", featuring images and background on the Iron Empires universe. I can be reached via email at moellerc@aol.com PAX =:o