Playtest Report

[MarcusAurelius]

Here are the results of a playtest for a cruiser engagement between the IJN's Cruiser Division 1 and the Allied Task Force 34 off the coast of Malaita.

FORCES INVOLVED
Japan: 4 heavy cruisers (Tone class Chikuma, Tone, Myoko class Myoko, Nachi) — 94 points

Allies: 2 heavy cruisers (County class Canberra, Shropshire), 5 light cruisers (Leander class Sydney, Brooklyn class Boise, Brooklyn, Atlanta class Atlanta, Juneau) — 94 points

TURN 1
With the Allies winning initiative, the Japanese cruisers advance north at half-speed and form a short battle line. The Allied task force heads southeast at full speed — closing to within about 20,000 yards of Chikuma and Myoko, but still out of range.

TURN 2
Japan wins the initiative. The Allied force continues south, hoping to flank the IJN fleet to the east. But the Japanese turn to the west. This brings them in range against Canberra, Shropshire and Brooklyn where they enjoy an advantage in firepower and torpedo range.

All three Allied warships open fire on Tone from within 15,000 yards. Shropshire and Brooklyn both score hits, crippling Tone. The return fire is even more devastating, leaving both Canberra and Shropshire crippled. All four Japanese cruisers fire torpedoes at Brooklyn, but the cruiser manages to evade them all.

TURN 3
Japan again wins the initiative. The two badly damaged Allied heavy cruisers manage to stay in the fight as the rest of the fleet closes in. The Allies advance southwest, while the Japanese retreat south in an attempt to keep the battle at long range.

The gunfire intensifies, with Canberra and Tone sinking each other. Sydney, Shropshire and Brooklyn concentrate their fire on Chikuma from about 10,000 yards, crippling her. Chikuma's return fire sends Shropshire to the bottom. Myoko and Nachi both target Sydney, finding the range and leaving the Allied ship crippled.

The tide of the battle takes a dramatic turn a moment later — when Chikuma sinks Juneau and Myoko sinks Atlanta with successful long-range torpedo attacks.

In less than 20 minutes of fighting, the Japanese have decimated the Allied force — sinking 2 heavy cruisers and 2 light cruisers while crippling a third warship. The IJN's losses: 1 heavy cruiser sunk, 1 crippled.

TURN 4
The Allies win initiative. Myoko and Nachi advance north, leaving the cripplied Chikuma behind. Having lost their numerical advantage, the remaining Allied force (Brooklyn, Sydney and Boise) retreats to maintain maximum range. Clearly, the threat of the Long Lance torpedoes has earned their respect.

Myoko and Nachi unleash several salvos against Brooklyn — destroying her outright when an armor-piercing shell ignites the main magazine. Boise avenges the loss of her sister ship by scoring a direct hit on Nachi that destroys the heavy cruiser.

TURN 5
Japan wins the initiative. The two remaining Allied cruisers (Boise and Sydney) retreat north. Myoko and Chikuma regroup as the guns fall silent.

CONCLUSIONS
For me, this simple playtest confirmed how important initiative and maneuvering will be in War at Sea. If you win the initiative, you can largely decide when, where and how the fighting takes place. That's critical to getting the most out of your force — using the right unit to attack the right enemy at the right range.

Maneuvering with 10 or more ships on the board gets pretty interesting. Units don't just sit in the same place and exchange fire. As the turns progress, there's a real fluidity to the battle.

Combat in this battle was fast and furious. The cruisers in play didn't seem to have much trouble hitting, crippling and destroying each other — even at long range. Can't say whether this will hold true across the board once we have the full rules and more diverse forces to work with.

Finally, Long Lance torpedoes are truly a fearsome SA. You won't see 6s on consecutive torpedo attacks in every battle. But the Japanese should have many more opportunities to be lucky with the ability to make range 3 attacks. The extra point of hull damage adds to the threat. Consider yourself forewarned.

[Joisey]

Great AAR!

[TheFoeHammer]

Very nice playtest report.

I think non-long lance forces will be wise to target those enemy ships early before their luck hits.

[MarcusAurelius]

Very nice playtest report.

I think non-long lance forces will be wise to target those enemy ships early before their luck hits.

Agreed. Unfortunately for the Allies in this battle, every one of the Japanese cruisers had Long Lance Torpedoes. Their strategy focused on taking out the Tone class ships first — due to the threat posed by the Scout Cruiser SA.

Secondary guns, Night Fighting and Rapid Fire didn't have much of an impact on the outcome of this playtest.

[Muenchausen]

Agreed. Unfortunately for the Allies in this battle, every one of the Japanese cruisers had Long Lance Torpedoes. Their strategy focused on taking out the Tone class ships first — due to the threat posed by the Scout Cruiser SA.

Secondary guns, Night Fighting and Rapid Fire didn't have much of an impact on the outcome of this playtest.

Did you use miniatures from another manufacturer? It would have bee nice to see a snapshot or two of the battle. Excellent playtest report!

[MarcusAurelius]

Did you use miniatures from another manufacturer? It would have bee nice to see a snapshot or two of the battle. Excellent playtest report!

No miniatures for this playtest — just homemade paper counters. I look forward to posting action reports with photos once War at Sea comes out.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Have their been enough previews with planes and carriers to playtest and see how much they affest the game?

[horacus]

Very very nice report. I seems, after all, that it will be a good game.

[Almirant Campioni]

I have a question may your fire an enemy ship trought a friendly ship? , and trought an enemy ship?

Thanks

[MarcusAurelius]

Have their been enough previews with planes and carriers to playtest and see how much they affest the game?

I thought about adding a Zero and a Wildcat fighter to bring the forces up to 100 and 101 points, respectively. But with 3 attack dice, a Wildcat only scores a hit against a ship with 4 armor about 13% of the time. The Zero's chances are just 1 in 36.

It should be a lot more instructive once we see stats for patrol bombers, torpedo bombers and dive bombers.

[MarcusAurelius]

I have a question may your fire an enemy ship trought a friendly ship? , and trought an enemy ship?

Thanks

Good question. Since a map sector in War at Sea represents an area approximately 5,000 yards by 5,000 yards (about 8 square miles), I don't think a 600-foot long ship will block line of sight.

That was the assumption for this playtest. But until we see the full rules, we won't know for sure.

[Joisey]

I was wondering how much effect the Tone's Scout die modifier had on those successful torpedo attacks.

[Der Leiter]

I was wondering how much effect the Tone's Scout die modifier had on those successful torpedo attacks.

It shouldn't have any since it only works on bomb and gunnery attacks.

[MarcusAurelius]

I was wondering how much effect the Tone's Scout die modifier had on those successful torpedo attacks.

Scout Cruiser definitely had a big impact on the battle, but not on the torpedo attacks. The SA states:

"At the beginning of your Air Attack step, you may choose an enemy ship. Your units roll one extra attack die when making Bomb or Gunnery attacks against that Ship this turn."

The way I read this, Scout Cruiser doesn't apply to torpedoes.

[Belisarius]

I suppose torpedo bombers would be considered "Bomb" attacks for this purpose?

[MarcusAurelius]

I suppose torpedo bombers would be considered "Bomb" attacks for this purpose?

That's my assumption. Hopefully we'll learn more Monday.

[world war III]

Very cool.

[Muenchausen]

I suppose torpedo bombers would be considered "Bomb" attacks for this purpose?

I disagree. A topedo attack is completly different from a bomb attack. What difference does it make wheather a sub, ship or plane launch the torpedo?

[XAos]

Question;
Were you playing that the 2 scout abilities could give+2 on one target. Or did you always use them on seperate targets ?
I'd expect the glossary of the advanced rules to say which is legal, but we havn't seen those yet.


TURN 2
Japan wins the initiative. The Allied force continues south, hoping to flank the IJN fleet to the east. But the Japanese turn to the west. This brings them in range against Canberra, Shropshire and Brooklyn where they enjoy an advantage in firepower and torpedo range.

This part of the battle description I don't understand.:confused:
It sounds as if, knowing the Japanese had won initiative that turn. The allies deliberatly slid their line off center to the japanese ("hopeing to flank the Japanese to the East"). Which in effect allowed the Japanese to cross their T. While this tactic might be valid in some positions. I don't think it can be valid on turns when your opponent wins initiative.
I setup some map positions, and assuming the allies deploy the 7 ships in a line of 4 cells. The Japanese should not be able to achieve this type of positional advantage. Without an allied misstake.

[TheFoeHammer]

I disagree. A topedo attack is completly different from a bomb attack. What difference does it make wheather a sub, ship or plane launch the torpedo?

Clearly the scout ability is representative to an ability to locate the target. For any air attack, a scout is helpful since your bombers (whether dive or torpedo) waste less fuel looking for the target.

Scout probably helps gunnery because it would effectively give you early notice for longer range gunnery attacks, especially helpful for ships without radar.

So it actually seems more odd to me that it DOESN'T help torpedo attacks than the fact that it does help torpedo bombers.

[TheJudge]

Torpedo attacking planes should be easier to shoot down with AA than dive bombers in my opinion.

[MarcusAurelius]

Question;
Were you playing that the 2 scout abilities could give+2 on one target. Or did you always use them on seperate targets ?
I'd expect the glossary of the advanced rules to say which is legal, but we havn't seen those yet.

For this playtest, the assumption was that two of the same bonus do not stack. So only a +1 initiative bonus for the Japanese, and +1 for each Scout Cruiser. Instead, Tone and her sister ship Chikuma used Scout Cruiser to gain a bonus against 2 different enemy units.

[MarcusAurelius]

It sounds as if, knowing the Japanese had won initiative that turn. The allies deliberatly slid their line off center to the japanese ("hopeing to flank the Japanese to the East"). Which in effect allowed the Japanese to cross their T. While this tactic might be valid in some positions. I don't think it can be valid on turns when your opponent wins initiative.
I setup some map positions, and assuming the allies deploy the 7 ships in a line of 4 cells. The Japanese should not be able to achieve this type of positional advantage. Without an allied misstake.

At that point in the battle, the Allies were maneuvering aggressively to close the Japanese in and capitalize on their superior numbers — hopefully bringing at least 3-4 Allied ships in firing range against just two Japanese cruisers.

This may have been too aggressive and a tactical mistake without the initiative. At the same time, the Allies still held a numerical advantage until Long Lance torpedoes sank two previously undamaged ships at range 3. Nobody would expect two sixes to come up on two dice with any kind of regularity.

[MarcusAurelius]

I disagree. A topedo attack is completly different from a bomb attack. What difference does it make wheather a sub, ship or plane launch the torpedo?

Good point. Guess we'll find out for sure in a couple days.

[MarcusAurelius]

Clearly the scout ability is representative to an ability to locate the target. For any air attack, a scout is helpful since your bombers (whether dive or torpedo) waste less fuel looking for the target.

Scout probably helps gunnery because it would effectively give you early notice for longer range gunnery attacks, especially helpful for ships without radar.

So it actually seems more odd to me that it DOESN'T help torpedo attacks than the fact that it does help torpedo bombers.

My understanding is that scout planes did more than spot enemy ships leading up to battle. They also helped gunners find the range during battle by reporting on misses — too short, too long, etc.

Whether the Scout Cruiser SA helps torpedo bombers depends on whether a torpedo is considered a Bomb attack. After reading Muenchausen's comment, I'm not sure that it will be.

[TheFoeHammer]

My understanding is that scout planes did more than spot enemy ships leading up to battle. They also helped gunners find the range during battle by reporting on misses — too short, too long, etc.

Whether the Scout Cruiser SA helps torpedo bombers depends on whether a torpedo is considered a Bomb attack. After reading Muenchausen's comment, I'm not sure that it will be.

That's right, we won't know until we see the card for a torp bomber or see the advanced rules.

[XAos]

I though over the tactics for the 7 allied cruisers in this example.
a) Formation; from port to starboard;
1st cell - 2xAtlanta
2nd cell - 2xCanberra
3rd cell - 2xBoise
4th cell - Sydney.
Putting the 4 best cruisers in the middle should make it impossible for the Japanese to engage without being in range of those 4.
The Sydney is close to the 2xBoise to provide them with more protection. If the Japanese cruisers position so that all 4 can fire on the Boises then they will be in range of all 5 of the heavier allied cruisers.

Targetting; If scouting stacks then the 2xTone are primary targets.
If not then the 2xMyoko are the first targets. They have more guns & torpedoes.
Allied cruisers should intially shoot to maximise number of crippled ships, which can later be finished off by the Atlanta class cruisers.
Until we know the rules for "Flag-1", it might be best to assume that the side with flag advantage always wins initiative on critical turns.

[swarbs]

Until we know the rules for "Flag-1", it might be best to assume that the side with flag advantage always wins initiative on critical turns.

I would hope that flag points are just positive modifiers for a dice roll determining who wins initiative, I would like for a side without too many flag counters to at least have a chance at moving second. Then again it seems like the Myoko's cost is greatly increased by having a flag point so maybe not.

[XAos]

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough. As usual I was trying to make a complex point short. I'm just too lazy to type long explanations for everything.:)
My basic assumption is the same as yours, i.e;
A "flag point" is likely either +1 to the dice or a re-roll.
So either way it won't (in play) guarentee winning initiative. And may or may not be accumulative with multiple ships.
But doing tests of these rules is different from actually playing the game. A test result that concludes "side-A won the game because it won initiative for the critical turn" is going to be less than significant if side-B has the higher flag rating." Having said that in some positions (e.g. carrier air-duals) it could be critical to the game balence, what the average frequency of each side winning initiative is.

[offramp]

Thanks, MarcusAurelius. This simple playtest took my interest from moderate to very high. I'm definitely looking forward to a few battle like this when the game comes out.

[swarbs]

You've cleared up your thinking for me XAos and I agree.

[MarcusAurelius]

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough. As usual I was trying to make a complex point short. I'm just too lazy to type long explanations for everything.:)
My basic assumption is the same as yours, i.e;
A "flag point" is likely either +1 to the dice or a re-roll.
So either way it won't (in play) guarentee winning initiative. And may or may not be accumulative with multiple ships.
But doing tests of these rules is different from actually playing the game. A test result that concludes "side-A won the game because it won initiative for the critical turn" is going to be less than significant if side-B has the higher flag rating." Having said that in some positions (e.g. carrier air-duals) it could be critical to the game balence, what the average frequency of each side winning initiative is.

I couldn't agree more with your main point — that we can only learn so much from a quick start ruleset and statistics for a handful of units.

Perhaps "conclusions" is too strong a word. I didn't mean for any of my comments to be taken as definitive statements. This was, after all, only a single battle. There were no destroyers, submarines, or aircraft. Assumptions were made about some very basic rules (initiative, line of sight, SAs, et cetera). "Observations" might be more appropriate.

All the same, it helped answer a few of the questions I have about War at Sea. And it was a fun exercise. I'm definitely looking forward to Monday.

[XAos]

All the same, it helped answer a few of the questions I have about War at Sea. ... I'm definitely looking forward to Monday.
Me too, on both counts.:)
I hadn't spotted that the formation of the 7 cruisers was important until. I started to analyse the movement options in your example (on turn-2 when the 2 forces were about to contact)
Which suggests that in a tournament I would want to analyze the weaknesses of my opponents squadron. Before setup. Correcting for an in-appropriate formation after setup would "waste" a turns manuver.

[MarcusAurelius]

I though over the tactics for the 7 allied cruisers in this example.
a) Formation; from port to starboard;
1st cell - 2xAtlanta
2nd cell - 2xCanberra
3rd cell - 2xBoise
4th cell - Sydney.
Putting the 4 best cruisers in the middle should make it impossible for the Japanese to engage without being in range of those 4.
The Sydney is close to the 2xBoise to provide them with more protection. If the Japanese cruisers position so that all 4 can fire on the Boises then they will be in range of all 5 of the heavier allied cruisers.

Targetting; If scouting stacks then the 2xTone are primary targets.
If not then the 2xMyoko are the first targets. They have more guns & torpedoes.
Allied cruisers should intially shoot to maximise number of crippled ships, which can later be finished off by the Atlanta class cruisers.
Until we know the rules for "Flag-1", it might be best to assume that the side with flag advantage always wins initiative on critical turns.

That's very similar to the Allied formation in the first turn — except that the two Atlanta class light cruisers were split on the ends of the battle line and Sydney was inside next to Canberra and Shropshire. Several of the Allied ships broke formation the next turn in an attempt to corner the Japanese force in the southwest corner of the map.

I think you're right — maintaining formation opposite the IJN cruisers would have probably been a better tactic for the Allies to maximize firing opportunities.

[XAos]

I think you're right — maintaining formation opposite the IJN cruisers would have probably been a better tactic for the Allies to maximize firing opportunities.

Theres a peculiar effect of the a hexgrid map (as compared to squares)
If the two lines of ships are both odd or both even, length(number of cells occupied) Then you want to "center" your line at range-4 during the approach. Since at range-3 the two-lines can only be placed off-center. Which inevitably allows the side which wins initiative to cross the others T.
Conversly if the two lines are 1-odd & 1-even length you should center at range-5 or range-3.
This could lead to some very intricate tactics when Iowa (extended range-5) fights Bismark (extended range-4) with both supported by a line of destroyers.:cool:

[MarcusAurelius]

To clarify, here were the battle lines at the end of turn one:

Allies
Atlanta, Brooklyn, Shropshire, Canberra, Sydney, Boise, Juneau

The basic idea was big hitters inside, light cruisers on the wings. Based on that approach, Sydney should slide out another slot. Apparently, the Allied multi-national force suffered some of the same tactical coordination issues that they did early in WWII.

Japan
Tone, Nachi, Myoko, Chikuma

During turn 2, Japan essentially worked in two teams (each comprised of a Tone class and Myoko class cruiser) to target and cripple both Canberra and Shropshire.

[XAos]

I played a similar test, with the formation I described. And assuming the Japanese always won initiative (from the Myokos flag bonus, exact effect unknown)
Result was mutual annihilation. On the last turn, the last 2 crusers (Tone & Sydney) Torpedoed each other. Which proved two things,
(1) Torpedoes are very random, the Tone had a noticable edge at that point but Sydney rolled a 6, with one torpedo at range-2.:eek:
(2) The longer battle line is vulnerable to defeat-in-detail. Especially on turns when it looses initiative. Anyone anaylysing destroyers V's battleships should consider that effect. Since the destroyers will always have the longer line & the battleship will usually have the higher flag value.