pre-dreadnought naval rules?
M.J. Nicasie
Hi there,
Does anyone know of a naval rules set for the pre-WWI era (say, the
Russo-Japanese war) suitable for relatively large-scale actions? I have
tried Seekrieg ans Steam and Steel, but find those too cumbersome for larger
numbers of ships; and General Quarters, but it is difficult to get/compose
the ship value tables and I feel that it is a little too much based on
salvo-based firing. I am looking for a relatively simple set of rules,
preferably with ship data, which can be used to recreate, say, the fighting
between the battleships and cruisers at Tsushima.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Martijn
--
"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre"
General Bosquet on the Charge of the Light Brigade
David Ferris
Martijn Nicasie asks:
> Does anyone know of a naval rules set for the pre-WWI era (say, the
> Russo-Japanese war) suitable for relatively large-scale actions?
If you can find it, a nice low-budget solution is to find the old
Metagaming microgame "Fire When Ready". It's a boardgame with hexmap and
counters, but is very easily converted for use with miniatures. It plays
fairly quickly, covers the period roughly 1890 to 1906, and I've used it
a number of times to play out Tsushima. I highly recommend it. It's been
out of print since 1982 but there are still plenty of copies floating
around, and shouldn't cost much more than $8 or $10 US.
If you've got a computer, you can use Shipbase III, which covers the
whole 1895 to 1945 period. Tsushima takes about 4 or 5 hours to do with
Shipbase.
Many years ago, prior to writing Shipbase, I wrote a computer-assist
program for Fire When Ready that took care of all the rules,
dice-rolling, and record-keeping. I wrote it back around 1988 so it's a
pretty ugly program, but it works, and lets you play something like
Tsushima in about 3 hours. We're looking into put that program on-line,
along with the source code for the brave at heart, once we clear up a
few other issues.
DLF
Jim Stuht
Try either the "Age of Iron - Expansion" or "Age of the Dreadnought"
rules
by Charles Pugsley and Leo Walsh of TCS. The former set handles the
1865 - 1890 period and the latter covers roughly 1890 - 1915. They
strike a decent balance between detail and playability and can handle
large engagements without slowing down the game. They should be
available from your local game store or from TCS directly. (don't have
the address handy, but you can probably find it at "The Miniatures
Page's" listing of manufacturers.
Jim S
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" -- Napoleon
Allan Goodall
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:27:56 +0200, in message
<6hnfr6$bcn$1...@thor.wirehub.nl>, "M.J. Nicasie" <mnic...@info-products.nl>
wrote:
> I have
>tried Seekrieg ans Steam and Steel, but find those too cumbersome for larger
>numbers of ships;
Oh, yeah! Ironclads and Ether Flyers (originally for the Space: 1889 RPG)
wasn't too bad, until your ships started firing all those little quick fire
guns, then the pace dropped to a crawl
>and General Quarters, but it is difficult to get/compose
>the ship value tables and I feel that it is a little too much based on
>salvo-based firing.
I did a ship values conversion of General Quarters for the period. I'm in
the process of refiguring the numbers now that I (finally) have Conways
1865-1905 book.
What do you mean when you say that the game is "too much based on
salvo-based firing"? I take it that the ships didn't fire in salvos during
this period? It was just individual gun shots? The reason I ask is that
while I've read several accounts of the Battle of Tsushima, I haven't read
a detailed account of the battle from the point of view of individual ships
firing at the enemy. I assumed that it was similar to WWI, but I could be
mistaken.
How would you like to see this modified? I'm willing to tinker with the
rules while I'm redoing the ship stats.
I also have a copy of the old SPI game on the Battle of Tsushima. I haven't
tried to convert it to miniatures (as I was using GQ), but it looks as
though it wouldn't be too difficult to convert or too slow to play.
Allan Goodall agoo...@sympatico.ca
"Once again, the half time score.
Alien Overlords: 142,000. Scotland: zip."
- This Hour Has 22 Minutes
David G. Bell
In article <354291c0...@newsserver.rdcs.kodak.com>
agoo...@sympatico.ca "Allan Goodall" writes:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:27:56 +0200, in message
> <6hnfr6$bcn$1...@thor.wirehub.nl>, "M.J. Nicasie" <mnic...@info-products.nl>
> wrote:
>
> What do you mean when you say that the game is "too much based on
> salvo-based firing"? I take it that the ships didn't fire in salvos during
> this period? It was just individual gun shots? The reason I ask is that
> while I've read several accounts of the Battle of Tsushima, I haven't read
> a detailed account of the battle from the point of view of individual ships
> firing at the enemy. I assumed that it was similar to WWI, but I could be
> mistaken.
Fire control was in transition at the time of the Russo-Japanese War,
moving from local control to a more centralised system of fire control
that allowed salvo fire.
One sign of this change was the number of main-armament guns on HMS
Dreadnought, and other new battleships that appeared at around that
time.
I don't know what the Japanese Navy did, but it's possible that a more
accurate way of using their guns (not just better training, but better
methods) was another of their advantages.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Robert Bishop
David,
I would be very interested in getting a copy of the pre-dreadnought rules
you mention, below, whenever you have them ready.
Rob Bishop
Portland, Oregon
In article <353F4D...@research.att.com>, David Ferris
Robert Bishop
Allan,
As a fellow pre-dreadnought naval miniaturist using (trying to use?)
General Quarters rules, I would definately be interested in having a look
at your pre-dreadnought-based enhancements for G.Q.
I have added a small paragraph at the bottom of this note, answering your
query regarding whether and when "salvo-based" firing got going (in the RN
at least). The recommended book is quite good, though possibly you already
know about it(?).
In article <354291c0...@newsserver.rdcs.kodak.com>,
agoo...@sympatico.ca (Allan Goodall) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:27:56 +0200, in message
> <6hnfr6$bcn$1...@thor.wirehub.nl>, "M.J. Nicasie" <mnic...@info-products.nl>
> wrote:
>
> > I have
> >tried Seekrieg ans Steam and Steel....(cut for brevity)
> >and General Quarters, but it is difficult to get/compose
> >the ship value tables and I feel that it is a little too much based on
> >salvo-based firing.
>
> I did a ship values conversion of General Quarters for the period. I'm in
> the process of refiguring the numbers now that I (finally) have Conways
> 1865-1905 book.
>
> What do you mean when you say that the game is "too much based on
> salvo-based firing"? I take it that the ships didn't fire in salvos during
> this period?...
(cut for brevity)
Yes, director controlled gunnery ("salvo-based firing"), got its start, in
the Royal Navy at least, around 1905/06. The first actual range-finder
tests were undertaken aboard H.M.S. Jupiter in 1905 by a Mr. Arthur Pollen
(Pollen had a brother who was an officer in the RN). The tests were not
successful at first. Pollen later improved on his aparatus and so did
others. A great book on this subject is Peter Padfield's "Guns at Sea"
(c1973, pub: Hugh Evelyn, Londan).
Rob Bishop
Portland, Oregon
David Ferris
Robert Bishop replies to one of my messages from yesterday:
> David,
>
> I would be very interested in getting a copy of the pre-dreadnought
> rules you mention, below, whenever you have them ready.
>
> Rob Bishop
> Portland, Oregon
I'm not sure which pre-Dread rules you are referring to, so I'll cover
both.
Shipbase III, the rules for 1890 to 1945, was published in 1993 and is
still available. I sold the last of my copies a few months back but
there are still plenty in the distribution chain.
Fire When Ready, my 1988-vintage computer-assist program for use with
the old Metagaming board wargame by the same name, which covers the
pre-Dread period, is temporarily posted on the ArmourSoft web site:
http://users.aol.com/ferns1/firewhen.zip
There is no link to it, it's just sitting there while we arrange a
permanent home for the files. The source code for the program is
included for the tinkerers out there, and some rudimentary
documentation.
Some other URLs while we're at it:
The main ArmourSoft site:
http://users.aol.com/ferns1/armour.htm
Treads & Turrets, 1984-vintage computer-assist tank miniatures rules
with docs and source code:
http://users.aol.com/ferns1/treads.zip
The Generic Legions (sci fi miniatures) site:
http://users.aol.com/ferns1/genleg.htm
Napoleon at Chattanooga (boardgame):
http://users.aol.com/nrk1/napachat.htm
Me in real life:
http://www.research.att.com/info/dferris
DLF
Bob Bryant
Allan Goodall wrote:
>
> I did a ship values conversion of General Quarters for the period. I'm in
> the process of refiguring the numbers now that I (finally) have Conways
> 1865-1905 book.
>
> What do you mean when you say that the game is "too much based on
> salvo-based firing"? I take it that the ships didn't fire in salvos during
> while I've read several accounts of the Battle of Tsushima, I haven't read
> a detailed account of the battle from the point of view of individual ships
> firing at the enemy. I assumed that it was similar to WWI, but I could be
> mistaken.
>
> rules while I'm redoing the ship stats.
>
Allan, I would very much like to get your ship values conversion for
predreadnoughts for General Quarters when you are done if they are for
sell or sharing. I would appreciate your posting a notice or sending me
email.
According to my reading, the frequency of hits would be much lower in
the predreadnought period than in WWI because of more primitive fire
control as well as slower loading. But -- from a game point of view, a
game that can handle a large number of ships for a 4-hour game will have
to deal with gunnery on a more abstract level than resolving each firing
of a gun, even for predreadnoughts. A turn would have to have 2 or more
firings from primary guns and many more than that from the QF's. In the
rules I am developing, I want to resolve multiple firings of one type of
gun with a single die roll. A fleet game bogs down if you break the
firings down more than that. In effect, the approach taken in GQ (salvo
firing is as good a name as any) should work for a predreadnought fleet
game if the hits are reduced. There is a large difference in expected
effectiveness in 1900, compared to 1890. This period is a rules writer's
nightmare, if you want both to keep it simple and maintain some kind of
accuracy (assuming you can figure out what is accurate, which is in
itself a guess).
I recommend Conway's History of the Ship; Steam, Steel & Shellfire; The
Steam Warship 1815-1905 (that's all one title) for anyone interested in
predreadnoughts, especially if you want to tinker with rules. Conway's
1865-1905 book has the ship data, but the other book brings it all alive
and puts it in perspective. It's available from the Naval Institute
Press.
Bob Bryant
David G. Bell wrote
>
> Fire control was in transition at the time of the Russo-Japanese War,
> moving from local control to a more centralised system of fire control
> that allowed salvo fire.
>
> One sign of this change was the number of main-armament guns on HMS
> Dreadnought, and other new battleships that appeared at around that
> time.
>
> I don't know what the Japanese Navy did, but it's possible that a more
> accurate way of using their guns (not just better training, but better
> methods) was another of their advantages.
>
According to my reading -- sorry, I don't remember which book, but I can
supply a list of the books I've read on this -- Japanese gunnery was not
more accurate. What they did at Tsushima is fire fast at close range. If
you put enough shells in the air, some will hit, same idea as the
machine gun, and at 3000-4000 yards, even a 6 inch gun has some effect.
Allan Goodall
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:36:40 -0700, in message <35481B...@usit.net>,
Bob Bryant <colo...@usit.net> wrote:
>Allan, I would very much like to get your ship values conversion for
>predreadnoughts for General Quarters when you are done if they are for
>sell or sharing. I would appreciate your posting a notice or sending me
>email.
They will definitly be for sharing. I like free stuff, so I assume others
do, too. It's a labour of love, and all that. I will forward this on to my
e-mail address. I have a number of people asking for it. Once it's ready,
I'll send it out. My wife is working late tonight, so I've got the perfect
excuse (luckily I did my taxes last night; I'm Canadian, so my taxes are
due on the 30th of April).
>But -- from a game point of view, a
>game that can handle a large number of ships for a 4-hour game will have
>to deal with gunnery on a more abstract level than resolving each firing
>of a gun, even for predreadnoughts.
That's what I'm determining. I've gone through my small selection of books
on the topic as well as looking at the way a number of other games have
handled it (in particular, _Tsushima_ by SPI). What I'm getting is a rate
of fire of about one column difference from that used by GQ on the damage
results table. This may be a fairly simple resolution to the problem.
I also want to add a slightly nastier modifier for more than one ship
firing on a target ship. One of the benefits of salvo firing is that you
only have one "firing" at a time from one ship. With a reasonably accurate
range estimation and a stop watch you can estimate when your shells should
land. Even if another ship fires, picking out your salvo from the other
ship's can be done if the ranges are different enough, or if the number of
guns firing are significantly different. However, if you have a number of
guns from a number of ships firing independently, it's going to be hard
enough telling your shell splashes/hits from the other guns on your ship
without taking another ship into effect.
>I recommend Conway's History of the Ship; Steam, Steel & Shellfire; The
>Steam Warship 1815-1905 (that's all one title) for anyone interested in
>predreadnoughts, especially if you want to tinker with rules. Conway's
>1865-1905 book has the ship data, but the other book brings it all alive
>and puts it in perspective. It's available from the Naval Institute
>Press.
Time to hop on over to Amazon.com...
Allan Goodall
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:46:14 -0700, in message <35481E...@usit.net>,
Bob Bryant <colo...@usit.net> wrote:
>According to my reading -- sorry, I don't remember which book, but I can
>supply a list of the books I've read on this -- Japanese gunnery was not
>more accurate. What they did at Tsushima is fire fast at close range. If
>you put enough shells in the air, some will hit, same idea as the
>machine gun, and at 3000-4000 yards, even a 6 inch gun has some effect.
This is the toughest part of adapting GQ: adding racially based rules that
don't unbalance the game. I'll add a modifier that adds to the AF of the
Japanese ships at close range. I suspect that long range wasn't as affected
because of the fact that it took longer for the shells to hit their target.
This meant that a gun team had to wait longer before they received shot
correction information. You could fire real fast at long range, but this
just meant that you'd be wasting a lot more ammunition when you missed.
Mike Campbell
In article <354913...@nol.net>, Bruce Biskup (bone...@nol.net) writes:
>Mr. Bob Bryant wrote:
>
>< According to my reading -- sorry, I don't remember which book, but I
>can
>< supply a list of the books I've read on this -- Japanese gunnery was
>not
>< more accurate. What they did at Tsushima is fire fast at close range.
>If
>< you put enough shells in the air, some will hit, same idea as the
>< machine gun, and at 3000-4000 yards, even a 6 inch gun has some
>effect.
>
>due to firing more shells at the Russian ships. If I remember correctly,
>H.W. Wilson in his book Battleships in Action, Vol. I describes Japanese
>gunnery being very controled under fire with the gunners taking time to
>wait for the roll of the ship to come event before firing amd thereby
>scoring more hits than the Russians who were firing as rapidly as
>possible.
>
>What I have read in several sources is that the Russians tended to be
>more accurate at long range but that the Japanese gunnery was more
>accurate at shorter ranges. - My two cents worth.
If you have a look at the armaments in Janes or Conways, you'll
find the Japanese had a massive advantage in medium calibre
quick-fire guns - ie 6" to 8". This advantage is mainly due to the
armoured cruisers present - big, modern ships of up to 10,000 tons,
they mounted up to 18 6 and 8" guns each.
the volume of fire from these more than made up for their nominal
disadvantage in heavy guns. And even that disadvantage was mostly
illusory - the Russian ships had some major short comings - for
example the 10" and 9" guns on the Coastal ironclads of them were
fairly ancient by this time, and the ships themselves virtually
unarmoured above the water line appart from te turrets.
The reason the medium guns were so effective was the armour
distribution on the russian vessels. They had heavy protection over
small areas, mostly close to teh waterline. This left very large
areas of teh vessels vulnerable to small and medium calibre fire.
The water-line armour was also often under water - making it
almost completely useless as protection.
You might be able to find copies ofFred Jane's two works on the
navies concerned in 2nd hand shops - "The imperial Japanese Navy
and "The Imperial Russian Navy" were reprinted by Conway in 1983.
They were both completed just before the war, although the Japanese
one includes Togo's official report on Tsushima as an addendum.
There's a cute little DOS game called "Dreadnought" which is around
somewhere that covers big-gun conflict quite well, although it's
fairly difficult to learn - I have no idea if it was commercial,
share- or free-ware.
Mike
Mike Campbell
Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
mi...@aloysius.mlb.planet.gen.nz (home)
cam...@safeair.co.nz (work)
David Manley
If anyone is interested I am working on a set of pre-dreadnought naval
rules based on a set developed through the Naval Wargames Society, and due
to be released by Felix Enterprises on completion. If you'd like to
playtest the rules please drop me a line.
On a personal note I would recommend just about any of D L Brown's books on
naval matters - but then I would have to, having worked for him!
David Manley
David....@btinternet.com
Bob Bryant
Bruce Biskup wrote:
>
> Mr. Bob Bryant wrote:
>
> < According to my reading -- sorry, I don't remember which book, but I
> can
> < supply a list of the books I've read on this -- Japanese gunnery was
> not
> < more accurate.
snip
> I believe that the Japanese gunnery was more accurate at Tushima and not
> due to firing more shells at the Russian ships.
snip
> I would also recommend H.W. Wilsons two volume
> set Battleships in Action since it was first written in 1926 and has
> been recently reprinted by the Naval Institute.
snip
> Finally, David K. Brown has written
> several technical ship histories with the lastest titled Warrior to
> Dreadnaught. I have used all of sources for the design of my
> pre-dreadnaught boardgames. Sorry, I have not yet made a miniatures
> version of the game.
>
> Bruce Biskup
> bone...@nol.net
Thanks for the information and references. Are your pre-dreadnought
boardgames commercially available? If not, is there a way I could get a
copy? You might have already said this, but I missed it.