Home Forums Air and Sea Naval Modern Naval Rules

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45001
    rory crabbrory crabb
    Participant

    I have uploaded my new set of Modern Naval rules onto my Blog.

    PDF link

    I have designed the rules to provide a simple and fast play game (not a highly accurate simulation) while still retaining many of the features and general “character” of modern naval engagements.

    One of my main aims when writing the rules to provide a game where little or no paperwork is required, all ship dater is contained on handily sized cards and things such as damage are kept track of using dice.

    I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the rules (positive or negative.. even spelling and grammar issues!)

    Many thanks in advance for your time and opinions.

    Rory

    rorycrabb.wordpress.com

    • This topic was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by rory crabbrory crabb.
    #45003
    RogerBWRogerBW
    Participant

    I’m always interested in modern naval – will take a look at these and get back to you when I have a chance. Thanks!

    #45066
    John D SaltJohn D Salt
    Participant

    The following comments are from a quick read through. Some clarifications seem to be required.

    p. 2: “ships in the modern era are of a much lighter construction than those of earlier periods such as WWII and when hit my missiles or aircraft have a much smaller capacity for damage” — on the contrary, modern designs are very much more survivable than WW2 ones of similar tonnage, especially against underwater blast.

    p.3: Active and Passive “detected” markers transposed.

    Why do you need to mark a ship’s having passive sensors switched on? (Why would they ever be off?)

    How does one mark a ship using, say, active radar but passive sonar?

    p.4: “Airborne” misspelt “airbourne” twice.

    p.5: Submarine movement — it seems excessive to use the entire movement allowance for a depth change. There seems to be no depth band corresponding to a sub below periscope depth, but above the thermocline. Rather than the cumbersome phrase “below the thermocline”, it might be better to use the doctrinal prowords SHALLOW and DEEP for above and below the layer respectively.

    Passive detection — “Passive detection can only be carried out against targets that currently using active detection.” It should probably be clarified that this applies to ESM detecting radar emissions, not to sonar detection. It seems odd that passive radar should have worse performance than active, given that radar warning receivers can generally detect radar emissions before the return echoes become useful to the radar (inverse square law against inverse fourth power).

    p.6 “If a ship successfully detects another ship using passive detection it may decide to immediately switch on its active radar to actively detect the target allowing it to be targeted by missiles or aircraft.” This suggests that active detection is a requirement for anti-shipping missile attacks, which I cannot find stated in the missile attack rules.

    Submarine and Sonar detections — “If a target ship is successfully detected place a “Detected (active)” counter beside the ship model.” Even if the detection is by passive sonar? I cannot find anywhere in the rules where active and passive detections are treated differently, so one wonders why bother to distingush them. It may be reasonable to require active detections to engage air targets, for example, and this seems to be done for AEW aircraft and helos, but not fixed-wing attack aircraft.

    p.7: “Airborne” misspelt “airbourne” again.

    p.10: Damage control: There seems no limit to the extent to which damage can be repaired.

    Ship cards: A gun Leader is shown where characteristics for an Exocet Leander are given.

    It is not clear to me how helicopter attacks work. Can the damage characteristic be inflicted on surface and submarine targets, without specifying the mission configuration before launching the helo? How can helos detect submarines, or are they limited to a glorified MATCH role?

    #45178
    rory crabbrory crabb
    Participant

    Thanks for the comments, I’ve made some amendments to the rules.

    I’ve also uploaded a brief AAR on my blog of a game we played at my local Wargames club using the rules.

    http://rorycrabb.wordpress.com

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.