Modern Naval rules

[jb]

I'm looking for a set of Modern Naval rules that do a good representation of todays systems. I'm also not looking into using whole fleets, so the rules should have some greater amount of "detail". What I need is something that would let me use a handful of ships on both sides,also containing air ops,and sub ops.
Anybody?
Thanks

[Panzerleader71]

Hope this is not crossing a line...

As far as I am concerned, and I'm not a big fan of Modern Naval games (not a 3D thinker), but Harpoon (current Edition) is the best I've seen. If you are looking for detail this is your game, you want it, it is in it.

Not sure which company has it right now. It think it is Clash of Arms Games, but not sure.

You can use minis or just plot the positions on a chart. Five star game, if a bit complicated.

[av8rmongo]

jb,

You're probably going to get some strong opinions on this one so let me get to the chalk board first. My vote is for Harpoon from Clash of Arms. They have a trilogy of rules covering WWI, WWII and Modern and recently have started a process of rationalizing data annexes and rules etc. so that it is (or will be) essentially one continuum across the whole spectrum.

Specifics about Harpoon: There are detailed rules for Surface, Subsurface and Air operations. The rules work from two ship duels to multi task force engagements (games with more than six or seven ships per side benefit from having an experienced GM). There are multiple supplements in print which detail Falklands campaign - including an abstracted Ground Combat System, Patrol boat actions, Asian tensions and conflicts and many more. There is a very active (international) player base both PBEM and F2F. The developers welcome comments, recommendations etc. To the greatest extent possible the rules try to 'model' what happens in real life. When real world events happen, such as INS Hanit being hit by a missile, they take a look at how closely their model matches real world. Many of the contributors are former or current naval service members - personal, professional experience.

If you would like more specifics I can provide them.

Paul

[jb]

Thanks guys.
I just got off the Harpoon website. They say that Harpoon 3 should be used instead of 4. Can either one of you help me on this?

[av8rmongo]

If you're reading about Harpoon 3 or 4 you're probably reading about the computer game of Harpoon. The paper / miniatures game is Harpoon 4.1 (4.2 sometime next year I think). Google Clash of Arms Games and you'll get the right website. If you like historic games they have plenty of other genres to choose from as well.

Paul

[fullmetaljacket]

Like i have said before the best naval rules i have came across and play is Seekrieg 5. They are very detailed but not so detailed you get lost in the translation. I have never played with Harpoon so i cant comment on that set of rules. I have tried a few others but by far Seekrieg 5 is the best and can be played with two ships up to as many as you want. Once the game mechanics are achieved it becomes a fast game. I have taught several guys in my area the game and all love it, actually a few have also bought the set of rules to have for them self. IT does cover surface, sub surface and air operations also.

fullmetaljacket

[jb]

Like i have said before the best naval rules i have came across and play is Seekrieg 5. They are very detailed but not so detailed you get lost in the translation. I have never played with Harpoon so i cant comment on that set of rules. I have tried a few others but by far Seekrieg 5 is the best and can be played with two ships up to as many as you want. Once the game mechanics are achieved it becomes a fast game. I have taught several guys in my area the game and all love it, actually a few have also bought the set of rules to have for them self. IT does cover surface, sub surface and air operations also.

fullmetaljacket

...but it only goes up to 1945,
Thanks

[fullmetaljacket]

But it only goes up to 1945 aye that is modern enough for me Yea john i thought about that after i posted it that you where asking about modern naval. In that case i cant really help you, I would say Harpoon 4 would be your best bet, i have actually thought about gettting a set and looking at them also. I just figure its a push button war in modern times over the horizon missle lock your dead when it comes to naval i could be wrong or just old fashioned. In that i like to see the whites of my eniemies eyes before i shoot.

Fullmetaljacket

[jb]

jb,
... If you would like more specifics I can provide them.

Paul

OK, Paul.
What kind of missles are the standard today,ranges,and hitting factors?
What kind of defense does a ship have in the form of (for loss of a better term) Armor?
What kind of range does a ship's OTH radar have?
I assume that you will be reffering these questions to Harpoon 4.1
Just a few questions for now to get this thread interesting.
Thanks.

[av8rmongo]

John,

Let me start with you're second question first because it will help to put the first question in context.

What kind of defense does a ship have in the form of (for loss of a better term) Armor?

The ability of ships to sustain flotation damage is represented by Damage Points or DPs. DPs are based on the displacement of a vessel with modifiers for type of building materials (i.e. steel, aluminum, titanium etc.), military or commercial standards, country and even timeframe of manufacture. When a ship is hit by a weapon it can take direct damage, losing DPs, and/or indirect damage via a critical hit (CH) mechanism. The CH table models the fact that hisgh speed, high density objects (like projectiles) wandering around the inside of your ship take out systems in addition to opening your hull to the sea. The critical hits can be flodding, fire, loss of steering, loss of weapons or sensors etc. Fires and floods also accumulate progressive damage if you don't get them under control. As a ship takes damage it loses speed, in 25% increments, until its DIW and then sinks.

As you're aware few modern ships are "armored" in the true sense. Many classes have limited armor mostly kevlar like composites over important areas to protect against splinters etc. Harpoon and the whole Clash of Arms series is undergoing a data annex rationalization program to unify all the entries so armor ratings are going to be provided for general armor (vertical and horizontal) and protection for critical areas. If a vessel has general armor ratings a weapon must first penetrate, if it can't then it only does half damage. If it does penetrate then it does damage in the form of DP's. The total number of DPs inflicted in a turn determine the number of possible CH that the ship might take. Once the critical hits are determined the locations must be checked for armor protection. If there is armor protection then determine if the largest warhead that hit can penetrate if it can the critical hit stands if it can't the weapon or sensor or whatever is protected.

Example: A harpoon missile is fired at a Chinese Luda class destroyer. Assuming the missile penetrates all the defenses, successfully acquires and hits the Luda it has a penetration of 13cm. The Luda vertical armor is 0 so the missile easily penetrates delivering 40 DP of destruction. The Luda has 113 to begin with so it is down to 73. The damage ratio for that turn is the total of damage inflicted that turn divided by the remaining DP. 40/73 or .55 this equates to 1-6 CH depending on the D6 roll - not a good day for the Chinese. The Luda is old and has no CH armor so any and all criticals will happen.

Now contrast that with USS Iowa. Iowa is attacked by 1 AS-20 Kayak (similar to Harpoon) and 1 SS-N-22, a very bad ** CENSORED ** missile. The AS-20 has a penetration of 15 which can't cope with Iowa's thick side (44) so it only does half damage - 23. The SS-N-22, which weighs in at 3600kg and flies at 1650kts (a chevy suburban packed with explosives traveling at mach 2+) hits the Iowa and has a penetration of 173cm easily defeating Iowa's armor. The warhead however is relatively small inflicting only 52 DPs. So Iowa's damage ratio would be 52 + 23 or 75DPs inflicted with 879 DPs remaining. The ratio is 75/879 = .085 meaning the US player would have to roll a six on a D6 in order to get 1 critical hit. With critical hit protection for bridge, engineering, rudder and the TLAM box launchers there is a fair chance the CH will be meaningless. It can almost shrug off a missile that would cripple an Aegis cruiser.

Paul

[jb]

Paul,
I see that in the example of the AS-20 and the SS-N-22 you added the two missle hits together. Is that how the procedure works? Add all missle hits that get through together?
I've not played a modern naval game since 1982. The game I played was called Battle fleet (I think?). It sure seems to run the same way as the two examples you show here. i.e. take displacement as a defense factorNow I have to go get the ladder out and climb the attic.
I do remember playing the scenario of the Nimitz going back to 7 Dec '41 and taking on 4 Jap carriers ( yeah,I know Sci-fi, that movie just happened to be on TV when I first got the rules). Some Kates, Vals, and Zeros got through the CAP,LR SAM, PDMS, and CIWS. I did find it interesting in the fact that if you have a lot of aircraft carrying 500LB, 1000LB bombs,and torpedoes,some do get through and they did severe damage in the form of crirtical hits. Didn't sink the Nimitz but put flight ops out.
Back to the Battle Fleet (?) rules. I also remember that when making an attack on a large target you needed to fire dozens upon dozens of missles. Is that how it works in reality too? I seem to have this thing stuck in my mind back in the Falklands war where the Argentine's seem to fire just a couple of Exocets and sank just about as many ships.

[av8rmongo]

John,

Yes, all the damage received in a turn is added to gether to determine critical hits, missiles, bombs, gunfire, collisions or whatever.

The Falklands campaign is a very interesting one to game out. The Argentines are at the edge of their useful combat radius without much air to air refueling capability. The RN is at the end of an extremely long supply line without much air power. Both the RN carriers combined could only put up about as many fighters as one of the US carrier airwings of the day could - but the Harriers were pulling double duty as fighters and strike aircraft. The Argentines have a pair of Type 42 Destroyers (Sheffield), the main air defense units for the RN. This gave them a huge advantage in being able to probe the weaknesses of the Sea Dart system. Turns out Sea Dart didn't work that well down low - sea clutter confused it. That is why all the attacks were at mast height or lower which made for some very dramatic footage. It also had a longish spool-up time for the missile gyros which is why Coventry was lost.
The RN was in decline after years of budget cuts. The hulls were new but the systems were not state of the art. At a time when the US and many NATO partners were using Phalanx and or the Sea Sparrow as the last ditch defense the RN was using Sea Cat missiles. They didn't have a single Phalanx system in heir fleet at the time. The Sea Cat missile was small, nexpensive and didn't add much weight or take up much topside space - all very important peacetime considerations. But compared with the standard of the day, Sea Sparrow, it was less than half the speed, around half the range and about half the tactical rate of fire.
The question of how much it takes to sink a ship depends on the ship or group of ships in question. The RN certainly had important weaknesses that Argentina was able to exploit. If you substitute a US carrier battlegroup of the day for the RN force you get a very different outcome. In that case I would say that yes you would need to saturate the defenses with lots of aircraft, missiles or whatever because that's what we were going to face with the Soviets.
For our international partners I'm not chest thumping here I'm just pointing out the consequences of peacetime budgets on war. 1982 the Reagan defense buildup was underway - new ships, new weapons and new sensors were hitting the fleet. The professionals in the RN did a great job with what the budgeteers gave them. Similarly the Argentines did a great job with what they had. Its amazing to me that they embarked on this gambit but made so many decisions to undermine their own position. The infantry on the islands were not cold weather / mountain trained - that unit was defending the border with Chile. You have to ask what might have happened if the infantry that were trained for and equipped for mountain warfare in harsh climates was actually on the ground.

Paul

[groundlber]

Everyone - Let me add my vote for Harpoon/ Command at Sea rules for modern Naval rules. The three rules sets cover most of the 2oth century, so you can work out many 'what if' scenarios as well as historical engagements.
Besides, in my opinion, Larry Bond is one of the genuinely good guys in the wargaming world. Let's vote with our dollars to support someone who's done a lot of good for wargaming.
Groundlber

[av8rmongo]

John,

To continue the discussion I'll address question #1

What kind of missles are the standard today,ranges,and hitting factors?

The answer to this is if it exists in the real world there is a 95% chance it exists in the game. Here's where the players really add to this game system. There is an active Yahoo Group forum as well as a newsletter that's published a couple of times a year - players often recommend rules adjustments, new data annex listings for ships, planes weapons or whatever so that the information is kept as up to date as possible. One down side of all this is keeping up with the changes between each major rules re-write.

The effectiveness of missiles are covered in a couple of different ways. First is seeker generation. For anti ship missiles the seeker generation will primarily determine the "Look Aperture" of the seeker when it activates, the width of the cone and the distance at which a specific ship size will be visible to the seeker. Later generation being able to look wider and detect a target further out. The type of seeker guidance is also incorporated in how missiles can be used. Does it have an active seeker or is it passive? Can it receive mid flight updates? Can it reattack? All of these factors are covered in the data annex entries for the missiles.

Air to air missiles are treated in a similar way. Seeker generation determines its suceptability to enemy countermeasures. Each missile has an air to air rating (ATA) which is used in a comparison against the target aircraft's ATA and the pilot's skill level to determine the chance of a successful engagement. Here's one thing that I think they got right. The pilot skill level rules are very effective. A great pilot in a mediocre airplane can neutralize some of the advantages that a great airplane gives to mediocre pilots. Well matched planes and pilots take a long time to dogfight to an unambiguous conclusion. Evenly matched sides generally end in a disengagement rather than a kill - which matches reality.

In terms of hitting power the damage rules were recently reworked and the damage equation is much closer to physical reality. Weapon/warhead mass, velocity of impact, type of explosive filler, shape of warhead are all used to determine penetration and damage points - note the previous discussion on SS-N-22. It has removed much of the parochial arguements of who makes the best weapons. Of course it is dependent on reliable open source data but that's another discussion...

So where are the weaknesses? Well one major flaw has always been on how the rules treat an antiship missile attack. Modern warships, at the high end anyway, have a plethora of both hard kill and soft kill options when under attack. Electronic counter measures to either jam, confuse or defeat the seeker. Long and short range chaff rockets. And of course missiles and guns. In the current rules the ship's passive defenses aren't factored in until the missile impacts at which point the ships countermeasures generation is compared against the missiles seeker generation to dermine the hit percentage. What this ignores is some of these countermeasures could be effective at relatively long ranges, well before close in weapons systems and possibly before gun range or missile range. What's the impact? Each missile therefore has to be defended against first with kinetic weapons and then with the passive defenses at the impact time. This makes ships more vulnerable to saturation attacks. Where this also comes into play is the so called "Three Second Rule". If a missile is destroyed in the last three seconds of flight, typically by a CIWS mount, there is still a lot of debris that is hurtling toward the ship and will impact. These "attacks" generate mostly Critical Hits and can be as effective as if the missile hit unimpeded.

For a practical example of what happens real world go back to the Falklands campaign. Atlantic Conveyor was struck by an Exocet that has variously been reported as being duped by a helicopter with a "blip enhancer" or being duped by a chaff cloud. Without any real defenses of its own the missile hit destroying the ship and its valuable cargo of helicopters. The rules cover helicopters with blip enhancers but if you subscribe to the chaff cloud theory there's no way to effectively simulate it as currently written.

But... These rules are being rewritten. I don't know when the revisions will be published but the design team is going to provide some mechanism for long, medium and short range countermeasures to have some effect on an imbound raid stream.

As far as ranges are concerned they run the gamut. Harpoon is around 50-75nm+ depending on the version. Some of the Soviet/Russian missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles but they require some asset to give an update to be effective. Many countries only field missiles with ranges up to about 20-25nm because that's where their horizon is. Its useless to pay for over the horizon capability when you can't use it.

Fullmetaljacket mentioned that he thought moderns were a "push button war". Obviously I disagree. Like any good wargame the more effort expended up front in planning the better the payoff at the other end. What are your enemies strengths and weaknesses? What are yours? How can you best match your abilities against their vulnerabilities to achieve your goals? What losses are acceptable? A good game is also dependent on good scenario design.

Paul

[jb]

Paul,
Thanks for the answer. It does open up alot of thought on the matter of missle attacks,on ships and aircraft. After reading this I guess I will need to wait for H4.2 to come out.
One thing that used to amaze me back in the early 80"s when playing Modern naval was the fact of the Soviets using the "flying crow's nest" with the Ka-25. The helo would pick up targets OTH for the mother ship, slave control, and guide the missile to their targets.
I can't wait to get my hands on some of those rules. In the mean time if you can keep the info about the game rules and modern naval going, it will be appreciated.
Thanks