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

Re: Quickfire Updates

Expand Messages
  • Jim B.
    ... I ll test both methods - and maybe some others - and see what people like. I suspect you are right though, and that the ROF T R F sequence is the best way
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "stephen_strawn" <sestrawn@...>
      wrote:
      > I not sure about that idea, Jim. The great attactraction to QF is
      > its simplicity. I'm inclined to reduced the 'Torp' rating after
      > the last ROF, just to keep it simple and stay in keeping with the
      > current mechanism of ROF->Fires. The thing I don't have a sense
      > of is to reduce 'Torps' before Repair or after.
      I'll test both methods - and maybe some others - and see what people
      like. I suspect you are right though, and that the ROF>T>R>F
      sequence is the best way of maintaining continuity. You'll notice
      that I prefer ROF>T>R>F over ROF>R>T>F. :)


      > Also, I noticed that Battlefleet1900 reduces the number of speed
      > boxes for the smaller ships. That may be another mechanism to
      > prevent a mass of destroyers from successfully engaging at close
      > range on a target that has not had it Lt guns reduced before hand.

      I had considered that but decided not to, so that all logs would
      apply. Otherwise we would end up with two sets of turn angle tables,
      etc. Something to keep an eye on though.


      > As the last question (I think you missed it) regarding a target
      > with 'intact' Hvy ROF have been reduced beyond Lt ROF, the
      > scenario that best reflects the issue is the 'Hunt for the
      > Oregon'. If the cruisers can't do more than reduce her Lt ROF,
      > its can one-sided very quickly (as we have discovered, and not in
      > favor of the Spanish).
      I still haven't decided how to handle that yet. I don't want to
      proceed with R>F hits until all ROF is gone as called for, but I
      would like to give credit for having effectively destroyed valuable
      portions of the ship. I'll be giving this one some thought and see
      what I can come up with. Of course any ideas are always welcome.

      Jim
    • Jim B.
      ... Mark off one ROF rating point from the ROF box on the vessel s ship log according to the follow rules: - Each G hit caused by heavy fire reduces the target
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 2, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Here is some initial update text for the Lt ROF hit question:

        --------------------------G = Gun Hits---->
        Mark off one ROF rating point from the ROF box on the vessel's ship
        log according to the follow rules:

        - Each G hit caused by heavy fire reduces the target vessel's heavy
        ROF rating by one point. If the target vessel's heavy ROF rating is
        at "0," a light ROF hit is inflicted instead. If all ROF points are
        at "0," a T hit will be inflicted instead. If the Torpedo Rating (TR)
        is also at "0," an R hit is inflicted instead. If the Repair point
        level is at "0," an F hit is inflicted instead. The outline of this
        procession is: HROF>LROF>T>R>F.

        - Each G hit caused by light fire reduces the target vessel's light
        ROF rating by one point. If the target vessel's light ROF rating is
        at "0," a T hit is inflicted instead. If the Torpedo Rating (TR) is
        at "0," an R hit is inflicted instead. If the Repair point level is
        at "0," an F hit is inflicted instead. The outline of this procession
        is: LROF>T>R>F.
      • stephen_strawn
        ... is ... people ... tables, ... Sorry to take so long to respond, Jim (was out of town). I think ROF- T- R- F answers makes the most sense as well, I just
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 7, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B." <manfred@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "stephen_strawn" <sestrawn@>
          > wrote:
          > > I not sure about that idea, Jim. The great attactraction to QF
          is
          > > its simplicity. I'm inclined to reduced the 'Torp' rating after
          > > the last ROF, just to keep it simple and stay in keeping with the
          > > current mechanism of ROF->Fires. The thing I don't have a sense
          > > of is to reduce 'Torps' before Repair or after.
          > I'll test both methods - and maybe some others - and see what
          people
          > like. I suspect you are right though, and that the ROF>T>R>F
          > sequence is the best way of maintaining continuity. You'll notice
          > that I prefer ROF>T>R>F over ROF>R>T>F. :)
          >
          >
          > > Also, I noticed that Battlefleet1900 reduces the number of speed
          > > boxes for the smaller ships. That may be another mechanism to
          > > prevent a mass of destroyers from successfully engaging at close
          > > range on a target that has not had it Lt guns reduced before hand.
          >
          > I had considered that but decided not to, so that all logs would
          > apply. Otherwise we would end up with two sets of turn angle
          tables,
          > etc. Something to keep an eye on though.
          >
          >
          > > As the last question (I think you missed it) regarding a target
          > > with 'intact' Hvy ROF have been reduced beyond Lt ROF, the
          > > scenario that best reflects the issue is the 'Hunt for the
          > > Oregon'. If the cruisers can't do more than reduce her Lt ROF,
          > > its can one-sided very quickly (as we have discovered, and not in
          > > favor of the Spanish).
          > I still haven't decided how to handle that yet. I don't want to
          > proceed with R>F hits until all ROF is gone as called for, but I
          > would like to give credit for having effectively destroyed valuable
          > portions of the ship. I'll be giving this one some thought and see
          > what I can come up with. Of course any ideas are always welcome.
          >
          > Jim
          >

          Sorry to take so long to respond, Jim (was out of town).

          I think ROF->T->R->F answers makes the most sense as well, I just
          don't have enough depth of a historical perspective to have come to a
          conclusion.

          As to the 'small ship' speed issue, the thought that comes to mind
          suggests a rule modification rather than a 'log' modification. In as
          much as the limitation for HROF against 'small ships' is a
          single 'special circumstance' rule, perhaps S hits could cause double
          damage for small ships is a similar type rule. This wouldn't require
          a second 'turn angle' table and have the same effect as few S boxes.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.