Thanks for your comments, and having taken the time to think about my work.
Regarding the battle of Denmark Strait, here is what I had in mind when I designed the scenario : the historical result was a decisive German victory at 71 points (Bismarck exited with minor damage and no reduction in speed, Prinz Eugen was not sunk, Hood was destroyed). Now, I’ll agree, the Kriegsmarine was somewhat lucky with Hood blowing up so soon in the battle. This is where I start treading on shakier ground, so to speak, as, well, I’ve never played the game yet and cannot claim to have the feel of it.
In « Nimitz », unlike other rule sets, Hood is much more brittle : with an Armour Value (AV) of 4, against 6 for Bismarck, it will take on average 2 more damages per penetrating hit. Also, at long range, Bismarck’s shells will penetrate 66% of the times, vs 33% for Hood. Lastly, even Prinz Eugen has a 33% chance at long range, and 66% at short range to get a penetration. This means that Hood is liable to being sunk fast, leaving Prince of Wales facing Bismarck. The Prinz has no chance to penetrate its armour indeed, but if it loses a turret, it loses 40% of its fire power. My feeling is that the German side is much more powerful than in other sets.
Regarding Norfolk and Suffolk, well, their mission was not to engage and keep shadowing Bismarck : I think they’d have attacked only when Bismarck was already done for, so I kept them out wholesale to things simple (this is an introductory game in fact).
Regarding the supposed mix up of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, there is no agreement that it actually took place (saw some accounts of the battle that categorically reject it….) so I kept it out as well. Now, that could be an optional rule : the German player has blinds instead of models on the table, they are not revealed till the KM ships fire…
« Your victory conditions make it a draw if the Germans sink Hood (30 points) but Bismarck is damaged, but a minor victory if they sink Prince of Wales (35 points) but Bismarck is damaged. I'd say those are equivalent results. Losing either capital ship is a minor disaster for the British. »
This is a very good point, thank you. This should be more consistent this way :
36-64 pts: victoire mineure / minor victory
30-35 pts:match nul / draw
I opted to make it a bit harder for the KM. Indeed, losing any ship is a minor disaster for the RN, but the Bismarck losing 2 speed boxes is a guaranteed destruction later (the only way in this game this can happen is if the ship is crippled). Needless to say, I’ll take into account what happens next Saturday when we play at the club.
Now on to Cape Esperance. You’re mlaking a lot of very good points, I asked myself these questions, but I feel somewhat constrained by the rules themselves.
Regarding radar, for instance, you don’t get any advantage for detection or targetting in the rules. In fact, you get a different set of data cards (labelled « 44 ») for these ships that make it this far into the war, especially on the Allied side. Now, I did not feel it would be right to use them that early, sinbce, after Morison, radar was a newfangled technology that was barely understood (and this was not the case for Norman Scott). In fact, Helena could not communicate with the flagship its findings. Regarding surprise too, Scott was expecting an enemy supply convoy (Joshima), and certainly not Goto. And Tanaka was a bit too far as well. The truth of the matter is that all this is exceedingly complex to simulate, at least for me, so I opted for the lazy option and left it out . And you nail it perfectly :
« I think the problem with any special rules in Nimitz is that the turns represent so much time (i.e. about 12 minutes) that a restriction in one turn could mean the battle is all over. So I'm not sure I would use any as I'm not sure how they would affect the game. »
Indeed, my feeling is that games can be short. The dilemma for the US player will be that he needs to open fire : if he does, his ships are illuminated, and can become prey to Japanese Long Lances out of small guns range (16 inches vs 24). At such a distance, all LL torpedo mounts will need a 6 to score, which gives a 50% chance of sinking a cruiser…
Regarding US initiative advantage, well, Scott did not really make great use of it (you can give a side a bonus to the roll in Nimitz BTW), so I admit, I just did not take it into account.
Regarding Savo, you are right : it would be better in the lower righthand corner. I’ll update it, not that it is very important. And you’re very correct about US VCs, I’ll add the DD blurb to the French version.
Once again, Hawke, thanks a lot : you’ve been very helpful, and I think you the games will be better with your advice. Cheers !
