Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses

Expand Messages
  • Morten
    In my group we use RNCL and find it a very nice rule. It has even sped up our naval combat for exactly the reason Rich points out. I heartily recommend that
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In my group we use RNCL and find it a very nice rule. It has even sped up our naval combat for exactly the reason Rich points out.

      I heartily recommend that rule.

      /Morten

      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Richard Gause <RG1066@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I don't think the rolling and math part would take long at least if you can do the math quickly in your head..............
      > I can even see it being faster in some cases as there is no waiting on somebody to make up their mind and pick which is a lot of times the longest part of the whole process....................
      >
      > Rich Gause
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Devin Cutler <devincutler@...>
      > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 3:50 pm
      > Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I like the concept, but the thought of doing a large Pacific naval battle and
      > having to roll all those weird random numbers and further slow down the game
      > made us balk.
      >
      > If the computer game ever comes out and integrates this rule, then I would play
      > it all the time.
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Wendell <wifwendell@...>
      > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:44:32 PM
      > Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses
      >
      <snip>
    • tfancher@saginaw-mi.com
      I suppose different people do it different ways. What we do is have the person who normally picks the target ship instead pick a target class . The
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I suppose different people do it different ways. What we do is have the
        person who normally picks the "target ship" instead pick a "target class".
        The attacker in an ATA battle, for example, could pick a "CV" or an
        "Amph", but would not be able to select the specific ship within that
        class. The defender in a surface combat could pick a SCS, but which SCS
        is hit is determined at random. To us that simulates a divebomber picking
        a flattop, but not not knowing which CV has an aborted CVP in its hold or
        which has an armor rating of "7" versus "6". The surface combat might
        resemble a night action where the defender puts out his SCS's in a screen
        to protect the carriers, but can not know which specific SCS the enemy
        will fire at.

        We have gone back and forth about whether the attacker could target a
        damaged CV ("it's smoking") or whether Trans and Amphibs should be in the
        same class. There are arguments both ways on that.




        danmccooey1@...
        Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        08/31/2010 06:56 PM
        Please respond to
        wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com


        To
        wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        cc

        Subject
        Re: [wifdiscussion] CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses









        This Random Naval Losses is intriguing, especially for our Cyberboard
        Group is always seeking ways to speed PBEM.

        So, give me the brief on this? Assuming we use basic ships (also to keep
        it simple), and not even SIF.

        So without using screening as that adds more steps, is it simply you
        randomly roll all surface targets? Same with Air to Sea? is the
        exception being spending surprise to choose targets?

        If we can stomache the added steps for ITPOTE screening, How does that
        work? Do both sides chose shooting ships that can be subject to the
        random losses? is that how it works? which side choses first? Extra
        losses I presume then get rolled on the Screened non-shooting ships?

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: tfancher@...
        To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:36:51 PM
        Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses



        Yes, we use randomized naval losses and like it a lot. The process seems
        more realistic. We also use ITPOTE, and like the screening aspect.

        I'm not sure about CLiF Damage. What is that again?

        "Brian" < jackstraw723@... >
        Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        08/31/2010 03:31 PM
        Please respond to
        wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com

        To
        wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        cc

        Subject
        [wifdiscussion] CLiF Damage & Randomised Naval Combat Losses

        I've been wondering how many people are playing with two naval rules
        from the list of optionals in the

        2008 Annual?

        I have been using Randomised Naval Combat Losses and CLiF Damage (at
        Steve B's suggestion - Thanks!) and I like them both a lot. I wrote up

        convenient message.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.