Getting real? Wargaming the current war

I don't normally do solo wargaming. To me it always used to smack of desperation - "Billy No Mates" and all that. Even through lockdown I rarely bothered, unless it was something written with solo play as an option (like Zona Alfa).

I also don't tend to do games based on current events. I'm not pontificating here. Philosophically I don't really see a big difference in playing a game which involves thousands of my representative troops being killed in a mad charge against a Roman Legion, or fighting through the rubble of Stalingrad. However the last really "current" conflict I played was back in 1982 when me and some friends at Hartlepool Wargames Club (Hi Dave Lakey!) played out some "What if" games as the British Task Force headed for the South Atlantic, before the real shooting war began. I don't think we really expected it to turn into a real shooting war. When our games resulted in a couple of Royal Navy warships being sunk by missiles I don't think we thought it would ever happen. Subconsciously I think I shied off from then on. I played lots of "What if" Cold War goes hot stuff, but no actual "live" conflicts. 

Anyway I digress. Mark F has been sorting through a box of spare 1:3000 scale warships dating back to the 80s, and asked for some help identifying what was what. I dutifully dug out my old 1982 copy of Janes Fighting ships and my model collection, and started to try and match his blurry pics to what I had. (seriously m8 my eyesight is bad enough - take better pictures!). This got me to thinking about current events, particularly the loss of the Slava Class missile cruiser Moskva. Interest peaked I dug out my old rules (Shipwreck) and decided to see what happens. Shipwreck was published in 1999 and was written with the 80s and 90s era in mind. Moskva was straight out of that era, and the Ukrainian Neptune missiles are very similar to US Harpoon* missiles, so that would do for my little experiment.

Scenario 1 - Wide Awake

I set the scene as much as I can work from open source material. Moskva is cruising with no close escort, and is attacked by a pair of Neptune SSMs fired from a land based launcher. Targeting is assumed to be a passive shot - ie the Ukrainians know the general area the cruiser is operating in, but don't have a precise fix. How the Ukrainians have a firing solution is currently unclear but I suspect someone from Langley may have made a call. Anyway the action starts as the two missiles reach maximum possible detection range for the Moskva's radar. 

Undetected missiles in grey

Onboard Moskva the radar operators are awake and alert. They make a detection attempt on the two incoming missiles, and much to my surprise, good dice results mean both are detected and identified as hostile. Someone hits the klaxon and alarms blare! However there is not a lot the ship can do at the moment. The main anti aircraft system is the S300F (SA-N-6). This is an area defence system and at least in Shipwreck can't target the incoming sea skimming missiles. That will have to be the job for the point defence systems - Moskva has a pair of OSA-M (SA-N-4) launchers, a twin 130mm gun and three groups of AK-630 gatling Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS). Not all of these can bear of course, but they're all brought on line.   

detected - red!

The missiles are coming in fast and low. They're subsonic, but they will still cover the distance to the ship in less than 2 minutes.... 

The SA-N-4 shoots first as the missiles get to very short range . Two missiles streak out, but miss. Moskva launches Chaff, but this will be resolved later.

The guns go into action. The 130mm and the front CIWS group open up, but miss. The starboard side CIWS however gets lucky, killing one missile. One left.

The remaining missile suddenly veer away, distracted by the chaff cloud, and crashes into the sea. All on board cheer with relief! A warship has shown it can defeat an ASM attack, just as designed.

Scenario 2 - Asleep at the Wheel?

We don't know if Moskva was aware she was under attack, but the pictures that have emerged show her SA-N-4 system is still stowed, and the missile directors are arranged fore and aft, which strongly suggests she was not. Maybe she was in passive mode, just listening, which it has to be said seems strange for an AA cruiser in a warzone, but stranger things have happened.

In this case the missiles are not detected until they are on their final attack run - Shipwreck assumes either someone sees them at very short range, or the seeker heads are detected when they go active.  Either way this is bad news. This time all the defenses miss - bad dice and no warning. The chaff isn't launched in time....

Both missiles hit the Moskva. One strikes forward under the bow CIWS cluster. It disables the guns but does only light damage. The second hit is a different story, hitting amidships and causing crippling damage. All power is lost and a fire rages. 

Damage control fights bravely, but two turns later the fires spread and the ship has to be abandoned. It sinks shortly after that. 

Not sure what this proves, other than even 23 years after publication Shipwreck works as a set of rules. Also the slightly disconcerting thought that possibly I'm ok with "current" wars as long as my countrymen are not doing the dying, which is food for thought. Will I be doing more from this war - nope. I'm still uncomfortable with that. However now I have dug out the rules and models maybe I will give them a spin again in a fictitious Cold War gone Hot scenario.

* The R-360 Neptune is a Ukrainian developed weapon that is based on the Soviet Kh-35 anti ship missile. The Kh-35 bears a startling resemblance to the US designed Harpoon, to the point it is often referred to as Harpoonski 

Thanks

Naval Gazing Part 3 - a Closer look - Victory at Sea 1:1800 models from Warlord

I think I mentioned how I managed to get a look at the demo set models from Warlord's new "Victory at Sea" set from my local FLGS. They had been assembled in the store but I volunteered to paint them over the lock down. So I've now had a good opportunity to have a look at them, here is an update.

The models are 1:1800 which makes them rather bigger than the usual 1:3000 I'm used to for WW2. This has a couple of interesting points. Firstly, they're bigger  (doh!), which makes them easier to paint. Secondly the level of detail is way higher than you get with Navwar \ Davco, though I can't compare them to GHQ which I've never really seen other than in a breathless nose pressed against the glass sort of way. Main armament turrets and some other details on the cruisers is separate which allows you to pose the turrets or even magnetise them if that is your sort of thing. Having painted a few now I have to say 1:1800 are rapidly gaining my approval.

The models I have finished are a pair of Japanese Mogami Class Heavy Cruisers, and a pair of Fubuki Class Destroyers. The Mogamis are a good example of the way Warlord are presenting these ship classes. The Mogami is (apparently) the 1939 version, however the second model is her sister ship the Kumano in it's 1944 refit with lots more AA, and the model clearly shows the differences.

The USN side consists of a pair of the ubiquitous Fletcher class destroyers and two Northampton class Cruisers, the Northampton and the Chicago - again with different weapon layouts and dates. The bases are marked to that effect.

May need to rethink the deck colour

All the models were speed painted with (mainly) those new fangled Citadel Contrast paints, and touched up with "normal" paint and dry brushing. I think they turned out quite nice and really took no time at all.

The data card in the set is a standard fitting, with notes on the rear showing a number of different refit options. I have mixed feelings about this - the specific naming of ships within a class is quite "kewl" but what happens if I want to do a later refit of a ship that not one of the named selection - do I get a close match and trim the name off?? OK this is very much a First World Problem but it does detract from the "kewl" a bit.

Are the much commented on bases a problem? I'm undecided. They made the models easy to paint, and at least to my eye they don't seem too obtrusive now they are painted. I also think they will help protect the models from handling damage, particularly to paintwork which is the bane of small metal models, so that is good. However I mentioned in the earlier post about the base warping, and in the process of correcting this I snapped one almost in half - clearly misjudged the heat needed to make them flexible. On the other hand repairs were quick and easy as the two halves went together with superglue and the damage on the painted model is (almost) invisible - I'm going to put that down to heavy handedness and unfamiliarity with the resin material used.

I think looking at these now they are painted I am starting to warm to the models and the scale. VAS is not meant to be a game to represent Jutland - like GQ, but what it loses in the grand scale (Grand Fleet scale?) it does seem to make up for with more detail on individual ships both in stats and in the models. Should you rush out and buy fleets in the "new" scale? Well if you already have 1:3000 \ 1:2400 I can see that would be a hard decision and I would probably just wait for the rules to be released and use your existing models. If like me you divested yourself of your WW2 ships some time ago, or have never had any to begin with, then the new models and scale have a lot going for them. 

Once this current social distancing \ lockdown is resolved I will hopefully get some games played and a better assessment of the game as a whole. Til then, stay safe.

Naval Gazing Part 2 - the rules - first impressions

OK so I mentioned seeing the VAS (Victory at Sea) demo set at our FLGS. Sadly I didn't have a chance to read through the rules at the time, but since then I seem to have quite a bit of time on my hands.......

Sadly what I don't have at the moment is ships, or an opponent, so this is going to be a bit "blue sky". or possibly "blue sea". I also have to say I have not played any WW2 naval other than Coastal Forces for quite a while and am quite set in my ways - "if GQ2 was good enough in 1980, it is good enough now" sort of thing. I didn't play the original Victory at Sea either, so bear that in mind.

However I do now have a copy of the starter rules and here are my initial thoughts.

Firstly these are the starter rules, not the full thing. They don't contain any stats for ships other than a couple of battleships. The stats are usually on the data cards provided with the models, however I understand there is a compendium of ships to follow which includes all the stats you will need. I appreciate this will be seen as an attempt to tie players in to Warlord models, which to some extent I think it is, however that's just modern gaming and will take about a minute to resolve if you want to use third party models or a different scale. They're also NOT a straight  lift from the previously published VAS v1 from Mongoose - there is clearly quite a bit of development and polish applied.

On scale, all measurement is from (and I assume to) the ship's bridge, which seems eminently sensible, so there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from using other scales if you already have them.

The actual layout is very good - which we have come to expect from recent Warlord releases. What did strike me immediately is that these rules are not full of Osprey plates, instead they are illustrated with some very nice photo-shopped images of the actual models, plus some artwork that I suspect has been commissioned for the job. There is one glaring and frankly unforgivable picture on page 4 which is in a very different style and appears to show HMS Warspite firing her "A" turret to starboard and simultaneously firing "B" turret to port. I have no words. This is so out of character to the rest of the illustrations I suspect it is a carry over from an earlier Mongoose version - but I digress.

The rules seem simple and straightforward. Initiative followed by alternative movement with the loser going first (not very realistic but a common game mechanic, which means no manoeuvring by squadron) with the shooting phase following the same alternating ship by ship but with the winner shooting first. As damage is applied immediately this could make for some interesting and tense decisions - always a good thing. Gunnery is a "bucket of dice" system which looks perfectly serviceable - normal range being out to 30" - if you want to shoot further you need some spotter aircraft or similar and can only hit stationary targets. Torpedo are just treated as another weapon system, usually one shot but devastating (I suspect a carry over from the sci fi roots of VAS but not unreasonable). Damage is assessed as cumulative damage points lost with a "Crippled" threshold, plus a critical hit system, again nothing new but nothing to suggest any problems. There's is a simple but easy to use damage control system for tracking the ongoing effects of fires and floods with the chance of fixing or the situation worsening, which I liked.  All the rules are clear and well explained and have illustrations to help - at least I found them clear (!)

There is an interesting crew order system to allow you to get your ship to do interesting stuff , some of which are automatic, some are based on a crew quality check which is usually 50/50.

Aircraft are covered in depth, but the stats in the starter set are very restricted - only one type per nation except the Germans who for some reason get the carrier borne versions of the Bf109 and Ju87. It seems strange to include these in the game at all given the number of German aircraft carriers operating in WW2, which was none, to several decimal places.

The second half of the rules covers scenarios, and these are interesting. It's clear that Warlord are aiming for casual "points" based games rather than re-fighting North Cape, but the scenarios provided do look well thought out and will generate interesting games. Having said that these are not totally disconnected from historical reality - you don't need to put your carriers on table for instance, which was refreshing.

Lastly there is the inevitable National fleet sections with special rules for each nation in the initial release, plus some passing mention of French and Italians. These are going to cause some comments, particularly from the historical naval players out there, but I think they do add flavour.

So I can't in all honesty say much about the rules til I play them properly a few times. That being said, my first impressions are broadly positive. I think these rules will give a fast and fun WW2 naval game. I'm 100% certain these will not appeal to everyone, particularly the "Old Salt" naval gamer, but for the casual gamer I think these are going to be worth a look.

Cheers

Naval Gazing - First look at Warlord's new Victory at Sea

I was hanging around our FLGS mulling over what I would need in the way of supplies for the coming "Isolation", when a parcel was delivered from Warlord Games. It was the demo set of the new(to Warlord - more later) Victory at Sea WW2 naval game, due for release in April.

I'm interested in "this sort of thing" so decided to hang around and take a look. The demo set was not the full starter set - more on that later, but it is enough to show the basic mechanics. It contains 2 Cruisers and 2 Destroyers for both sides, Japanese getting Mogami's and Fubuki Class, US Northampton and Fletcher.

So first the models. These have come in for a lot of initial flak due to the very pronounced oval bases when seen in Warlord's promo pics. I'll come back to the bases in a bit, but the actual models look rather good. They're in the new "Warlord resin" and the castings I saw were crisp and clean, and looked very accurate. The scale s 1:1800 which is NOT a proprietary scale, despite what a lot of people think, and actually I think in this case it is a good choice - small enough to get some impression of ranges, but big enough to gave plenty of detail. The models came as a hull fixed to the base, which has some nice wave details, and a small sprue of detailing parts - turrets,  catapults etc. There was some warping but I expect that should be an easy fix with a quick hot water bath.

Now on to the "hovercraft" effect of the bases  In real life I don't think it is that bad. A quick read of the rules - which I assume are a cut down version, shows no need for the bases as part of the rules mechanics. My assumption is that they needed to base depth to make the casting easier and to allow them to have the names on the bases (which they do - individual ships on the Cruisers and classes on the DDs). Only Warlord know. I think they have made the issue worse in their photos by drybrushing the waves on their model bases, which creates an optical effect of emphasising the darker sides of the base - I suspect painting the sides of the bases a lighter shade would be a good idea.

I didn't get a chance to look at the rules themselves, but the accompanying punch board with tokens and turning angle thing etc was good quality and should last - not so sure about the paper sea mats which will I guess be the first thing to be replaced, but it makes sense to include them. The data cards seemed quite detailed - no idea of how accurate they are as I never got to look at them for any length of time. The damage track "clips" beloved of Warlord make a reappearance but these look to have been redesigned a bit and hopefully will work better than those in Cruel Seas. 

So - lastly a bit of history of Victory at Seas. Not something I have played, being a Dyed in the Wool General Quarters player. This game started out as a Sci Fi set of rules for Babylon 5 iirc, by Mongoose Publishing and it was modified by some enterprising folk to cover real WW 1 & 2 era games - not sure what that says about the rules but the general consensus was that the V1 set worked and gave a reasonably fun game, if not too accurate. V2 was scheduled but never completed, along with some detailed 3d mastered ships - about 50 so I am told. Warlord have done a deal with Mongoose and released this version along with the models. Not sure if this is indeed V1, V2 or somewhere in between. The starter fleets will be available through retail but the suggestion is the follow on models may only be direct sales.

First thoughts are this could be a winner - I know I said that about SPQR and that turned into a disaster to play in record time. In this case I think we are on firmer ground as there is a decade of testing the VAS system in it's various forms so it should have had most of the kinks ironed out.

The starter set is a USN\ v IJN affair and contains 3 US Cruisers and 6 Destroyers  vs 3 IJN Cruisers and 3 Destroyers. There are also Fleet Boxes that add battleships and Carriers and also some Battleships available as single packs.

One to watch

ps I think the ships would make excellent target markers for Blood Red Skies.

Thanks to Ste at Asgard Wargames for the pics - Cheers M8 - and if you're interested in VAS Asgard will have them on pre order now https://asgardwargames.co.uk/product-category/victory-at-sea

Black Seas - First look

I wandered into my local games store this afternoon (Asgard Wargames - purveyor of plastic and white metal to the discerning gamer) and noticed on the "hobby table" their demo copy of Warlord's new Napoleonic Age of Sail game Black Seas has arrived. Interest sparked.

Intrigued, I picked the rules up and took a seat to have a read through. I should explain here I have been quite critical of Warlord's last couple of releases. Cruel Seas was quite buggy, and SPQR was basically unplayable as written. Both needed extensive corrections \ FAQs within a week of release. In this SPQR was by far the worse. Most of the problems with Cruel Seas were omissions or editing, and though some of this was irritating or puzzling, the game was still fun. Don't ask about searchlights. I really like Cruel Seas now. Sure there are some bits that need house ruling (err searchlights) and stuff that is counter intuitive but actually the core game is fine, and the models are excellent. SPQR has different problems which I've covered in an earlier blog post so wont go into again. Both these games had exquisitely illustrated rule books, and were lauded pre launch by Warlord and others as being the next great thing, only to cause quite a lot of displeasure when they were actually in the hands of the players. So given the previous two, I was quite cynical about Black Seas, which seems to have been "inspired" by Cruel Seas, and was receiving the same pre release fanfare. I decided to wait to let someone else take the risk of buying only to find another badly playtested or edited Warlord product.

So here was my chance. While Jamie W sat assembling the models (more later) I started to read.

Jamie hard at work

Grabbed and settled down for a read

What follows is just a first read through, and obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I feel a warm glow of enthusiasm - Warlord may well have got this right. The rules are of course lavishly illustrated - Warlord have a partnership with Osprey that means they can access the Osprey illustrations from their myriad of books, but the rules seem, well at first glace, pretty good. I should make a caveat here. These are an Age of Sail era rules set. The direction of the wind really is important, because you just can't sail into it - physics and all that. Black Sails  (BS- I think they may have needed to think about the title a bit more) allows you to do just that. This was highlighted before and the explanation I heard from some Warlord guy was that a captain would know how to get the most out of his crew and ship. This is of course BS, because, well, physics. It's like suggesting you can fly a plane backwards. No matter how good a captain or crew, physics and gravity tends to trump skill. HOWEVER there is an "advanced" rules section that contains a perfectly playable and reasonably simple set of movement rules that acknowledges, well , physics. For the life of me I don't know why these are not in the "main" section. I suspect there is a concern somewhere in Warlord that they need to keep it simple, which I think is misplaced. Most gamers can handle the idea of wind direction  - it's not rocket science. So that's movement out of the way. Shooting is D10s and seems familiar, sharing some DNA with Cruel Seas, but there was nothing in there to make me pull a face (except maybe speed modifiers to hitting a target - not sure how much that is really a factor when most ships are moving at walking speed, but not a great problem). Boarding seems simple and reasonable. In fact on this first read through the rules look pretty solid and complete.

So I while I was sat reading I asked Jamie what the models were like to assemble and he said "Dead easy". By the time I had finished my read-through (maybe half an hour) he had assembled all the models and was cracking on painting the first Frigate.

Frigates assembled

Brigs assembled

I turned my attention to the other stuff in the demo set. The ship cards were good quality - seemed the same general thickness \ quality as Cruel Seas ship cards. The various counters and other card punched stuff was very good heavy duty card too. In fact the only concern would be the paper map sheets which are the same as the Cruel Seas ones, and will probably get replaced. The other carry over from Cruel Seas was the wake markers and the paper "clips" to record damage. I've no issues with the wake markers, the clip things didn't work in CS as they were a bugger to get out of the sheet and then tore easily - and I suspect the same will happen here, but it's not a major issue.

By the time I had finished rooting around and flicking through the box Jamie had done this using Citadel "Contrast" paints. You could have knocked me down with, well something appropriately naval. Literally less than an hour from sprue to this

So the models. Beautiful. Yes I know they're in the "wrong" scale for traditional Age of Sail games, but on this one I'm not buying into the argument that they chose the scale to make sure you bought their models. The scale means they can make these as plastic kits, and the detail is superb. The pre printed paper sails are a bold move, but they seem to work well - as Jamie has shown. 

I can't do a full review of the rules - you have to play them to do that, but many of my concerns about the rules have been allayed, and my first impressions are very positive. The models are - well the ones I saw are first class. Or should that be First Rate? If the first impression holds true, I think Warlord have really hit the sweet spot here.

Cruel Seas - Soviet Minesweeper "Mina"

I've just about finished painting my Soviet fleet box for Cruel Seas. If you have not seen the fleet boxes and are looking at playing CS they're certainly a good place to start. The Soviet one contains four each of the G5 and D3 MTBs, a pair of Bronnekaters (Project 1124s NOT 1125s as Warlord keep insisting) and the Fugas class Minesweeper. The other nations follow a similar pattern - one "big" ship and a selection of little ones.

I left assembling and painting the Fugas til last. Partly this was a matter of being a bit intimidated by the size of the thing, and partly because it was clear the model was of a very early ship, possibly even pre war. This was quite interesting because the ship data card included in the set didn't match the stats in the rule book, but did match the model. I wanted more guns, particularly AA guns as a mid to late war ship - and it was clear this was not only desirable from a gaming point of view, it was also quite historically correct. (edit - they errata'd the stats in the book). The pic below shows how the ships gained additional firepower as the war progressed. The Warlord model is very close to the original Project 53 design , what I was wanting to try for was something closer to the T407 Mina, which as an up-gunned Project 53

The model itself was quite nice, consisting of a very crisply cast rein hull, and some metal details. The only assembly issue being the lifeboat davits which needed a bit of work to get even close to the right position, but they fitted in the end.

My limited research suggested the best way to up gun the ship was to re-site the aft 45mm (which for whatever reason Warlord insist is a 40mm*) further aft and replace it with a 37mm AA gun, and add a pair of the same behind the bridge. Ideally I should have cut the rear of the bridge with the two DshK HMG mounts away, but it was a hefty piece of metal and I bottled that. The Mina with this configuration can be seen in the pic below nearest to the camera.

Getting the 37mm AA was a royal PITA. Warlord don't include this gun in their accessories set, but initially I thought his would be easy - just pick some up from a 1:300 manufacturer such as Heroics and Ros. This idea came a cropper fast as unlike every other nation Heroics and Ros don't make a 37/40mm AA gun for the Soviets. Scotia do, but it is a strange 2 part model with the gun platform integral to a square of metal to represent the ground and it would be a pain to separate. GHQ DO make a beautiful gun in towed and firing set up, but they're also rather expensive and ordering the three I wanted would have increased the cost of the project by 50%. Similarly the other Warlord guns of about the same style such as the Bofors in the US accessories set wouldn't really be suitable as this has a gunshield. 3d prints to the rescue. Paul Davison printed me out some 37mm he found on Thingyverse (or similar) and they cleaned up well. The first prints were way too fine, so I asked him to artificially scale them up to match the oversized guns Warlord were providing, and after a bit of trial and error Paul delivered as requested (Cheers m8). As the gun mounts included the round platforms they also were easy to fit to the ship abaft the bridge with minimum messing about - I had to file the paravane a bit to get them to sit right but all in all they look quite reasonable. I do fear for their long term survival given the extreme thinness but I can always ask Paul to print some more**.

* Warlord are pretty crap at identifying guns OR maybe they think the punters are so dense they cant handle the info, but they seem to have decided to re-designate quite a few of the Soviet guns - so for instance they refer to the very common 45mm as a "40mm", and the 76.2mm F34 on the Bronekaters as "6 Pdrs" . To a rivet counter like me this is really annoying. I suspect this is because they are shoehorning them into fixed categories, but surely the correct way to do this is to say "treat as" rather than just arbitrarily change the name? 

So there she is. It has to be said the additional AA will make her a tougher opponent for any S Boats she runs into, but she remains a bit lightweight when compared to some of the other larger ships in Cruel Seas. Being classed as a large ship she is very vulnerable to torpedo attacks, and her relatively slow top speed wont help either. All in all a really nice model and well worth picking up if you are planning on playing Soviets in Cruel Seas

Cruel Seas - Comrade Tender

Warlord keep steadily adding to their Cruel Seas range, and just about all the nations have something in the range to act as a small troop transport - except the Soviets. This is a bit of a gap as a couple of scenarios require you to land troops. The Germans have Seibel Ferries and F Lighters, the Brits and Yanks have a variety of landing craft, and the Japanese have several choices, but the Soviets are a bit lacking at at the moment. I'm "tooling up" for  a campaign and will need something to act as a troop transport, or just a target in some missions, so I have been looking around for something suitable. Step forward the Lagoda Tender.

I first heard about these interesting little vessels about twenty years ago when I found a collection of Soviet era commemorative postcards on a local flea market. I took them home and framed them it, to hang on the stairs to the games room (err loft). Several of them showed these funny little barge things doing undoubtedly heroic acts. Sadly the staircase was in the sunlight, so they've now faded, as did my memory of them, till now.

The Lagoda tenders were a series of boats initially built in Leningrad during the siege and used to get supplies in and civilians out of the besieged city. They were a VERY simple design, probably the epitome of function over form, basically a welded flat bottomed barge made from crude metal plates and powered by an engine taken from a truck. When I said crude I did mean it - the bow is basically two metal sheets welded into a straight V shape, in fact there are no curves anywhere on the boat, and they're steered by a tiller rather than a rudder and wheel. They were at least two versions, the larger being 43 feet long, weighed 25 tons and chugged along at about 6 knots flat out. While undoubtedly basic they were equally robust and they could carry about 50 passengers or cargo, and could be armed with a DshK HMG for anti aircraft defence. That simplicity did however mean they were incredibly robust, and the shallow draught and flat bottom meant they could land just about on any beach or shore. During the siege they built 118 of these and between them they made over 10,000 trips to and from the city, carrying 150,000 tons of cargo in and taking thousands of civilians out, constantly under threat of air attack. Many were damaged, but none were reported lost, quite an achievement. It didn't end there. As the tide of he war turned the design was so successful they became an integral part of Soviet amphibious operations, taking part in landings both the Black Sea and Baltic. The Lagoda Tenders are held in high regard in Russian history, similar to the Little Ships of Dunkirk here in the UK, and gained the nickname "Comrade Tender".

So back to the games element. I discovered Scotia \ Grendel did a 1:300 model in their Ship to Shore range. I bookmarked them, but had "a Cunning Plan". My regular oppo Paul had just acquired a 3d printer. So far he's been printing out models that are designed by others and made available for personal use on Thingyverse and the like. I've been tentatively thinking about dipping my toe in to doing 3d design myself, but so far lack the time or talent to really get it to work. Surely the Lagoda Tender, a boat that consists of straight lines, would be a good project to start with? I mentioned this to Paul too, but he seemed sceptical. I think with hindsight he knows me better than I would like to think:-) - after a couple of tries at various programs I did the equivalent of screwing the drawing up into a ball and throwing it in the bin! I went on to the Scotia site and ordered three from them. However unbeknown to me my comments had lodged in Paul's mind, and a couple of days later he sent me a pic - I'll follow that up in another post.

Meanwhile Scotia delivered, and the model is rather nice. Resin cast and with crisp detail they painted up quickly.  Proportionally they look about right, with a bit of exaggeration to the height to allow them to have a bit of depth in the hold, which is no bad thing in my view. Price wise they are £3.50 each which initially I pulled a bit of a face at but with hindsight is about the same as the equivalent Warlord LCMs (with the added bonus that being resin they will hopefully take less damage to the paintwork when handling) so not so bad.

a pair of Scotia Lagoda Tenders

Size comparison with a Warlord Vosper

the real thing preserved

In Cruel Seas
One of the oft repeated issues with Cruel Seas is there is no explanation of how they arrive at the stats or points, and the points system provided manages to miss out on a couple of really crucial factors. All that being said, after having a look at some of the boats already in the rules it should not be too difficult to come up with some stats. There are three small landing craft available in the Cruel Seas rule book. the Japanese Daihastu, and the UK and US LCM. These all have 20 Hull Points. The Lagoda is slightly bigger and made of steel rather than wood, so 25 Hull Points seems fair. This will also mean it is almost always going to survive the 5 D6 damage you would expect from an air attack in Cruel Seas, which seems to fit too. It is Small sized, and immune to torpedo attack due to the shallow draught. Comparing it with the others it would either be free (ie zero points) if unarmed (like a UK LCM) or 5 points each if up-gunned with a fearsome DshK HMG. Turns will be the normal 45 degrees per move phase, and speed breaks down into 2\4\6 cm which is painfully slow but correct, and helps balance out the points compared to the LCMs which are faster.

So there you go - if you're looking for something to add to your Soviet Cruel Seas collection these are worth a try.

Links
Scotia Lagoda Tender
Some useful history and pics from the Engines of the Red Army website - worth a look

Something a bit bigger next time

Denmark Straight - some Naval gazing

There was a suggestion in May that it would be nice to try out the Denmark Straights around the anniversary using different rules and compare results. True to form our gaming group managed to be so disorganised that it took until late June to hit the table at Asgard Wargames in Middlesbrough (purveyor of fine toys for the discerning war gamer).

We set up using Dave Manley's suggested start positions (see Dave's excellent Blog here) and we had three players. Player one - Mark playing Bismark\Eugen , player two (me) playing Hood (aka "the Big Firework") and Prince of Wales (PoW), and Paul playing the shadowing cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk. Rules are the venerable GQ2 - complete with rusted staples holding them together, models Navwar\Davco from Marks collection.

An aside here - Mark is of the general opinion we should follow each recorded decision \ event faithfully whereas the others tend to say "bugger that" and want to try other options. What happened tonight was really interesting. Up to the point in game events prevented it, both British players followed the historical decisions made by their historical counterparts and "Mr Scripted" tried to deviate. I think this was because when faced with the situation, the British made the right decisions but in real life they didn't pay off. When our RN players faced the same circumstances the decisions were remarkably similar to their historical counterparts.

Anyway back to our story. Hood sighted Bismark and Eugen and it was game on. The British immediately tried to close the range and Hood targeted the lead enemy (Eugen) and PoW shot at Bismark. This is of course historically accurate. Admiral Holland on Hood knew that his vessel was particularly vulnerable to long range plunging fire so wanted to get closer to avoid that. Of course that meant sacrificing half his firepower as he would have to steam straight at the Germans and mask his rear turrets, but that was a risk that had to be taken. As for shooting the wrong ship, Hood allegedly got confused because they were expecting Bismark to lead, and both German ships have remarkably similar outlines. With their first salvos the RN achieved nothing, and it was with some trepidation that I handed the shooting dice to Mark. Both his ships targeted Hood, and Bismark scored a critical hit. There was a sense of dread in the air as he rolled his crit result - it couldn't happen, could it?

Hood is hit

Actually no. Hood emerged from the pall of smoke and spray with some bulkhead damage and one turret out but refused point blank to blow up. This felt like a major victory. Norfolk tried a speculative long range shot at Eugen but missed.

Turn two and the Germans turned slightly towards the British, and again concentrated fire on Hood, and a second hit dropped her to half speed. Hood fired again at Eugen, and there was one of those "Ouch" moments when a couple of 15" shells tore through the cruiser inflicting serious damage to hull and turrets. To make matters worse for the Germans PoW landed a solid hit on Bismark that damaged a turret but the critical hit on the hull failed to penetrate the armoured belt. Norfolk missed, but Eugen got a straddle in return.

Norfolk is straddled

Turn three and Hood was now moving slow enough due to damage to force the Admiral to detach her. Mark was also thinking about detaching Eugen. Initially he had planned to deviate from the script and try a torpedo run but the damage suffered dissuaded him and Eugen starter to turn away. Hood and PoW now completed turns to open their A arcs and get all their guns to bear on the clearly identified bulk of Bismark, which was stolidly holding her course and still allowing the range to drop.  British gunnery now kicked in - big. Both Hood and PoW scored heavy hits on Bismark, and the range was short enough to ensure that this time they were getting through the German armour. Fires broke out but were quickly extinguished. Bismark fired at Hood again, and another hit saw her steam lines ruptured and speed fall away. Norfolk straddled the departing Eugen.

Eugen turns away

A arcs open - "Shoot!"

Turn 4 and it was clear pithy messages to the Fuhrer were going to be needed. Hood and PoW hammered Bismark with relentless accuracy, hitting turrets, Bridge and Fire Control. Return fire was now weak and caused no additional damage. Eugen and Norfolk exchanged fire as Eugen tried to disengage, but in doing so the German inadvertently ran towards Suffolk. Hood had got her boilers up again and was making a respectable 15 knots, even though the old lady had taken a beating. Bismark was now reduced to a single main turret and was low in the water.

That's a Paddlin! (tm) - British dice doing their thing

Turn 5 and it all ended for Bismark when again the British Battleships scored very damaging hits, and burning from stem to stern she slowly rolled over and sank. Eugen ran, but her top speed was reduced due to damage and she was outnumbered 2-1 by Suffolk and Norfolk. Both sides straddled the targets but with no hits.

The end

Turn 6 & 7 and Eugen was desperate to escape, and for a while it looked like she may just manage it, then a hit to her machinery slowed her again and the British Cruisers closed in to batter her into submission. The killing blow actually came from Hood, who landed what was now a very speculative shot from long range.

So a resounding victory for the Royal Navy. Tactically Mark made one mistake in trying to close the range when he would have been better served to have maintained it or even tried to open it a bit. That decision was with hindsight a crucial one as he sacrificed his better armour and weapon range. Stat wise Bismark is clearly better than both Hood and PoW, but the margins are not enough to allow her to shoot it out with both at the same time, and the early hits on Eugen that forced her to try and disengage meant that was the position she was in. Hood had managed to reach the point where she could start causing serious damage with most of her main battery intact, and after that the sheer weight of fire of two Battleships against one really told. Historically this was Admiral Holland's plan, though he never lived to complete it. British dice rolling was also very good \ lucky, German not so much.

What we left out. PoW entered the battle with some serious defects in her main battery and should have been firing with her main armament reduced by one level to represent this. When we thought about this we realised that this really would not have changed the result as due to a quirk in the rules if firing with full value (30) or reduced (24) the dice rolls PoW was making were so good the damage would not have been any different. We also didn't represent the apparent advantage the Germans had with their position  making it easier for them to spot targets.

Great game and a lot of fun. I feel dangerously motivated to try another.

WorLard - Durham part one - Coastal Patrol

Yesterday I attended "Wor Lard", an annual gaming event arranged by the chaps at Durham Wargaming club where the day is dedicated to the games of the Two Fat Lardies, and indeed attended by Rich Clarke, the face of TFL, and others.

It happens in the Vane Tempest Community Hall in Durham, itself an interesting building as it once was the headquarters of the Durham Militia, but has since been converted into a community centre, which, as they say, is nice.

The Dread Portal!

The format of the day is simple. Everyone is asked in advance what they want to play from a broad menu of current and past TFL hits, you turn up, have a chat, and then get your gaming head on. One game in the morning, break for lunch and snacks, another in the afternoon, wrapping up at around 5:30 in time for a pint at the local hostelry followed by a curry. In many ways an unreconstructed perfect day for me.

My first game was Coastal Patrol - MBTs and Eboats in the Channel and all that, very much a "happening" period due to the popularity of Warlord's Cruel Seas. The scenario was pretty standard fare, E Boats returning from a patrol run into a pair of Fairmiles who are covering an Air Sea Rescue Launch inserting an SOE agent, all complicated by a patrolling R boat with a previous history of trigger happiness so everyone is under strict instructions to identify targets before shooting.

CP uses an action system - each turn a ship dices for how many actions it has, usually between none (Captain asleep at the wheel or otherwise distracted) to three. These are the usual things like change speed, order a turn, attempt to spot, shoot, etc etc.

The game was a blast, and ended with a fairly comprehensive win for the Kriegsmarine when they managed by sheer fluke to blow up the ASR launch within an inch of making it's escape. German gunnery dice were damned impressive throughout, and two critical hits on the bridges of the Dogboats caused them both to be ineffective at the crucial moment as the crew struggled to replace the COs, cut down in a hail of 20mm cannon fire.

Blinds in play

E Boat evading

Contact ! 

An E boat "blind" skilfully weaves between the Fairmiles

So the inevitable comparison with Cruel Seas (CS)? - disclaimer - after just one game of Coastal Patrol! (CP)

Lardies are usually held up as a paragon of "play the period, not the rules" and tend to produce much more "realistic" (tm) rules to Warlord, and Warlord\ Cruel Seas has taken some criticism for this, particularly over their torpedo rules, so I was interested to see how they dealt with the challenges inherent in fast attack games.

Firstly, night. CP immediately assumes the game is set at night, which is the norm for the actual engagements. CS is pretty silent on this, but there is some hand waving going on about the short in game ranges representing the problems of poor visibility and mostly being at night. CP uses a system of blinds to represent this and adds an interesting layer of confusion - "is that a target?" "is it a friend from another flotilla?" etc. This is fun, BUT there is an unavoidable layer of complication in any double blind system tracking who can see what and has identified what. That does make for in interesting game, but also imposes a practical size limit on the number of boats a side as more than 4 or 5 would probably swamp the system. One interesting CP rule is that firing your automatic weapons loses your target in the glare of the muzzle flash, so you have to reacquire taking actions - a nice touch that adds quite a bit of tension. Searchlights - searchlights in CS work in ways that defy logic and physics, it really is just a head shaking moment. CP uses a template that works, if you are stupid enough to use it because although you can see your target, everyone can see you. Nuff said.

The actual firing systems are poles apart. CS uses a number of dice based on each of the weapons firing, CP aggregates firing points devolved by the guns that can bear, meaning an average E Boat was throwing 4 or 5 dice. CS uses a simple hit points system, with possible critical hits, CP a progressive damage system where you basically shoot things off the target until it burns down, blows up or sinks due to flooding. Both systems work, but CS does make your boats extremely short lived where in CP in theory you can take a lot of hits on non essential bits. Dealers choice.

Turning. Another area CS takes some flak for is the way boats turn. There is no real excuse for this - a tanker at 15 knots should not be able to turn twice as far as a E boat at the same speed. CP uses a simple turning circle which takes a lot of hassle out of the game. I hate turning circles personally, but they do work.

Torpedoes. CS takes a LOT of criticism over it's torpedo system, which many feel is too complicated and not realistic, requiring the torpedo to move through the water, dice to hit, dice to explode. CP uses almost the EXACT same system, with one major exception being torpedo hits are pretty much universally fatal, something CS gets very wrong. The similarities between the two systems are striking, which does make me wonder how much the criticism of CS is due to an anti Warlord bias from the naval wargames intelligentsia in their stuffed armchairs (me included)?

Aircraft. CP doesnt have them. This is perfectly sensible. Why would you have aircraft intervening in a night engagement between coastal forces? CS goes all "Hollywood" here, which is fine if you like that sort of thing, or would be if the air attack rules had been better written, which sadly they are not.

On the subject of size, CP and CS both focus on small boats - up to Corvettes and Minelayers, but unlike CS it looks as though the player base has enough understanding not to want to include the Bismark.

Both games have a fair amount of clutter - both use ship cards to track damage for instance, but CP is noticeably "chart heavy", much more so than CS, which is certainly a factor in CS's favour.

So overall? The thing about Cruel Seas is, it is undeniably fun. No matter how much I dislike elements of it, and there is a lot to make you scratch your head in puzzlement, I've not had a game which was not fun. There's a lot to be said for that, even if you have to switch your brain off in places. Coastal Patrol is also fun, but takes a slightly more refined and thoughtful approach.

So either or? - Why not both? I have every intent of giving Coastal Patrol a try using my Cruel Seas models. I assume CP was written with the traditional 1:600 models in mind (which we used today) but there is no reason why it wont work with Cruel Seas 1:300 models, and vice versa.

Coastal Patrol was published in 2011 as part of the TFL 2011 Summer Special, available on line as a pdf for the princely sum of £6.49 from the two Fat Lardies web store. Well worth a look as it contains a veritable boat load of other good stuff https://toofatlardies.co.uk/product/2011-summer-special/.

So that got me through the morning. Next post will hopefully cover the afternoon where I struggle to save Roman Civilisation from the waves of unwashed barbarians.......