Objectives in other naval games?

[Bismarck]

How are objectives handled in other naval games out there?

I´m thinking of games like maybe Victory at Sea or General Quarters.
Is the combat scenario based in the way that you have to protect a convoy or escape a larger fleet with your ships?

If you´re playing let´s say Victory at Sea scenario where two equal fleets are facing each other. What drives the combat? Do stalemates or turtling occur frequently?

And on a slightly different note, how has WaS played out for those who have played it without the objective markers?

[Stormhawk4107]

When we play WaS without objectives it's usually like real combat. We'd make fleets of equal value for the two sides and duke it out on the map till either one side was completely gone or forced to withdraw due to combat losses.

[aquarius]

We almost never play with objectives any more, just 500 point battles that we fight to the death. It encourages the use of aircraft carriers, because you don't necessarily have to rush forwards to the objective.

[SSGShadow]

We have played inthe past with using islands as the objective, where you must be able to capture the island in order to "land your troops". Alternately Warspite had creates some great little scenarios to play out. The points are typical around 100pts +/-, but you could certainly double, triple, quadruple, etc the build and object points if desired.

[weedsrock2]

On the other hand, our group always plays with objectives. We are all experienced Mechwarrior (and other) gamers and we know stalling and turtling are a huge problem. Stalling is not an issue for WaS since it is not time limited (except by our families!), but turtling and running would be a big problem that would make the game take too long to finish in our opinion.

We like the game mechanic and fairly fast play just like it is. If we wanted to play specific scenarios we would do that without objectives (because a proper scenario would define an objective). But so far we have not taken the extra time to play scenarios.

I have played Victory at Sea several times and it gets boring and repetitive very quickly unless you create specific scenarios with 'objectives' defined. Our fleets quickly get reduced to circling each other until one side gets tired of it and dashes across the 'circle' to finish off the fight. So for VaS I think it is critical to define a scenario for the match. (Basically setting objectives).

[Rebel_Commander]

In our games we use objectives for little battles to make them fast and fun. But for the bigger battles we usually just duke it out. Most of the time u maneuver for a few rounds and bomb each other with planes but we have never had a stalemate someone always wants to destroy the other fleet. The best battle is when u have 3 or more fleets on the board and just have battleship fights those are fun. No Subs, aircraft or anything like that just battleships destroyers and cruisers in a free for all.

[sealaw]

In GENERAL QUARTER THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVES. WE PLAY ENCOUNTER BATTLE OR CAMPAIGN WITH LINKEND BATTLES.

[Jesse_James]

I have always liked K.K. N' D. games. (no objectives)

[Torps]

Before WaS I played quite a lot of General Quarters. It has no objectives other than mission specific tasks. It has no points system either.
The WaS point system, for all its oddities, allows players to pick reasonably matched forces and if you combine that with scenarios designed by players here, plus Warspite's mission generator you get some very enjoyable games and plenty of variety.

[seahawk]

The WaS point system, for all its oddities, allows players to pick reasonably matched forces and if you combine that with scenarios designed by players here, plus Warspite's mission generator you get some very enjoyable games and plenty of variety.
I quite agree Torps I found that General quarters really kicked along when we played campaigns otherwise it was always hard to get a 1 off game balanced right.

While the objectives in the center of the table force fleets to move in quickly it doesn't give a great "feel" of fleets trying to maneuver gain position.

[Schlachtschiff Bismarck]

I will play either way, but very little battle was ever done over "objectives" most of the time the whole point was to send the enemy fleet to the bottom.
To me the objectives are best used in ubalanced games where victory for one side means getting out alive against overwhelming odds or some type of raid scenario where the objective means something.

[PaulG]

The objective system is in place to encourge eplayers to contest the middle of the map.

I haven't played without objectives, but my suspision is that if you did so carrier fleets nuking the opponent from the back of the board and/or subs would become too dominant.

Whilst carrier fleets did indeed become the dominant factor in the war, I've playd enough carrier games to know that its the meat and potatoes of main gunnery that carries WWII naval games, and I am thankful that WaS encourages that side of the game through the objective system.

[TK421]

Played a game against my old man today (Canadian Thanksgiving). For what it is worth he was in the Navy for 25 years. We've played wargames on and off for some twenty years now.

When I (sheepishly) explained the objectives he suprised me by proclaiming that "They represent the higher imperative", plus they "force you to go and do something instead of milling around at the back." With that his Ark Royal pushed for one objective while a cruiser went for another.

At first I was against objectives, but I see their value in the game. They capture intangibles like morale and orders from higher in a rather elegant way. If you play without them you may find that balance suffers.

Cheers

TK

[Schlachtschiff Bismarck]

If there is no retreat from the board, hanging around in the back will gain you nothing. so far I have seen little effect from aircraft against battleships, so the mainline units need to engage to win, and if you have only carriers when a battleship corners you... it is lights out. I have done this three times now.

[polish_horsy]

At first I was against objectives, but I see their value in the game. They capture intangibles like morale and orders from higher in a rather elegant way. If you play without them you may find that balance suffers.

Cheers

TK

I'm not sure I'd say it is elegant. It's rather silly to anyone with a sense of naval history. But hey... it is a game play element. And it makes games into sluggfests rather than dacefests.

[swarbs]

If there is no retreat from the board, hanging around in the back will gain you nothing. so far I have seen little effect from aircraft against battleships, so the mainline units need to engage to win, and if you have only carriers when a battleship corners you... it is lights out. I have done this three times now.

This is true, but a carrier build isn't necessarily doomed. Dive-bombers kill surface escorts well and combined with torpedo bombers can hopefully deprive the battleship of extended range quickly. With subs placed to intercept the battleship, now stripped of escorts, there is a good chance of victory and there is a 100% chance of eliminating the battleship on battleship boredom.

[TK421]

I'm not sure I'd say it is elegant. It's rather silly to anyone with a sense of naval history. But hey... it is a game play element. And it makes games into sluggfests rather than dacefests.

I suppose elegance is in the eye of the beholder...To me it is elegant because it captures the aspects of the battle (moral plane) outside of just sinking the other guy's ships without getting too complicated.

[Schlachtschiff Bismarck]

This is true, but a carrier build isn't necessarily doomed. Dive-bombers kill surface escorts well and combined with torpedo bombers can hopefully deprive the battleship of extended range quickly. With subs placed to intercept the battleship, now stripped of escorts, there is a good chance of victory and there is a 100% chance of eliminating the battleship on battleship boredom.
As I stated I have seen little effect from aircraft against bb's and torpedoes rarely hit in any games I have played or seen and have little effect against bb's when they do. Ask any of my opponents and they will tell you that I typically dominate using nothing but heavy units.

[Rebel_Commander]

I played a 250 point battle this weekend no objectives vs. the US. I played an IJN fleet consisting of 1 x Yamato 1 x Akagi 1 x Shokaku 2 x Val 2 x Kate 3 x Zero 1 x Betty and 1 or 2 Yukikaze and 4 x I-19. My opponent had 1 x Iowa 1 x Tennessee 1 x Enterprise 2 x F4F 3 x Dauntless 1 x princeton and something else. I made quick work of the Iowa's range with my torpedo bombers and dive bombers. however my subs were largely ineffective. it was just the dice rolls werent coming up. at range 0 and 1 against a damaged ship I19's roll 4 dice. I was getting any hits from my subs. My planes however kicked alot of ass and won the game for me.

[Schlachtschiff Bismarck]

I thought it was your akagi that kicked ass and saved it, for the dammage already done my dad didn't do too bad towards the end.

[Rebel_Commander]

Yes your aboslutely correct the akagi did do the trick and finish your dads tennessee off but my airplanes hit them first and took away the iowas range. my yamato would have survived the encounter but he got a critical hit and sent her to the bottom. after that i was really scared. but the akagi charging the battle ships ended up saving me. those dang worthless subs did nothing.

[Schlachtschiff Bismarck]

once dad figures out the nuiances of the game we are all doomed...trust me