Sam Mustafa's New WWII Naval Rules - Nimitz

[steve_holmes_11]

I'm afraid I don't have photographs.

I was really impressed by the sharp detail.
This allows a wash to really pick up the details.

I tend to do ship recognition by silhouette, and have no problem distinguishing battleships and cruisers at that scale.
I would most certainly struggle if a battle involved a mix of destroyer classes.

A follow up, since I obtained the Nimitz rules last week and dug out my 1/6000s for a couple fo solo plays.

First up, like many smaller scales (eg 6mm figures) I had forgotten how truly tiny they were.
A battleship is about 4cm long, dome destroyers about 16mm.

My eyesight has faded since I obtained and painted these models.
This means I cannot easily make out all their detail, and I cannot read the tiny recognition codes I once inscribed on their base tabs.
I solved this potential problem by snipping up Post it notes and sticking a piece under each base with a visible recognition code protruding.

The other problem is locating the actual aim point as specified by the Nimitz rules (The centre funnel).
I switched to using the front of the base.
This worked, but created some odd geometries where ships apparently at broadsides were actually shooting from their rear arc.
I'll review this in future.


Having played a couple of small games solo, I thought I'd share impressions.

The rules are well written and generally elegant.

I found myself suffering the dreaded WRG "brain fog" into relatively small games.
Several factors could be at play here:
 * Playing new rules and playing solo.
 * Handling rosters, shooting factors and the sole look up table (I've lost the habit of going form roster to QRS to table).
 * The grey cells decelerating with age.

I hope this will improve with practice and when playing with live opponents.


Moving on to gameplay.

The game is extremely streamlined, and much detail is abstracted.
It manages to maintain a ship's character. You will use its actual guns and torpedoes. Speed and Armour are abstracted into a number of bands.

Guns operate in two range bands.
This surprisingly works given the generous movement allowances.

There is no massive pile of hitpoints to write down, instead each ship has two damage tracks: structure and buoyancy.
Gunfire reduces structure while torpedoes reduce buoyancy.
When either falls "into the red" the ship becomes crippled and various subsystems degrade.

Gunnery hits can also cause the misleadingly named "criticals".
I regard a critical as something that does exceptional amounts of damage.
In Nimitz, criticals are systems hits, losing items like turrets (primary or secondary), torpedoes, gun directors or the infamous magazine hit (Subject to armour penetration).

Missing is any way for a lucky gun hit to cause engine damage and reduce the enemy speed.
Only torpedoes can do this, through ships do slow down when crippled.
I considered this an omission.

Movement is generous.
A clever turn sequence (slower ships moving earlier) and restrictive turning (One turn in a move, up to 90 degrees) still present challenges in lining up the perfect shot.

Even playing solo, I found it difficult to position my destroyers for a torpedo launch.
And every turn they spent within range of enemy secondaries, they are in real danger.

The movement looks nothing like the elegant tracks you'll find in books describing naval battles.
I sense an element of chess, where opponents will gradually adapt tactics to protect their ships when moving first, but leaving aggressive moves open when playing second.
Rather like a snooker game, thinking several moves ahead will likely pay dividends.

A final minor gripe is the length of time required to finish off damaged an unsupported enemies.
The dice can conspire to miss against even a stationary hulk a close range.
The "criticals" can see your mortal blow fail to punch through armour, and the shells sail through the gap where the gun director once stood.
Other dud shots are possible like criticals against secondaries or torpedo types on ships that have none.


Nimitz gives a quick game that requires thinking.
Ships feel and behave like their historic counterparts.
Abstraction has been used to simplify and streamline the game, with the occasional odd result occurring.
And occasionally your dice will treat you abominably.

The abstraction is such that most battleships feel quite distinctive:
The Queen Elizabeths and R-class are similar but have differences.
Japanse Fuso and Ise classes are similar enough to share a template, as do the American North Carolinas and South Dakotas.

Down at cruiser level, the abstraction begins to flatten differences.
While 8" guns are rated large (and can potentially hurt battleshile) while 6" guns are small, speed and damage tracks are pretty similar for ships that obeyed the 10,000 ton treaty limit.

When it comes to destroyers, there are relatively few distinctions.
All have similar buoyancy and speed, but differ in armament.


My very limited experience is that battles work best up to one step of difference.
Battleships and Cruisers, or cruisers and destroyers.

Destroyers in a battleship fight will whizz about looking for Torpedo shots, but will each consume as much game time as teh capital ships.
Consider how some Horse and musket wargame rules have very fussy skirmish rules, and you spend 80% of yoru time evaluating largely indecisive skirmish actions.
There's certainly a danger of destroyers doing this here: Taking long odds shots in the home of hitting a battleship's radar, or limping about the table in a crippled state.

Destroyers certainly have their place, but I didn't use them well in my playtests.
Rather than an aggressive opener, hold them back to finish off enemy cripples, or save them for night actions.


I sense there's a good game in Nimitz if I can persuade my landlubber opponents to weight anchor and damn the torpedoes.
It doesn't do everything I hoped, but is the best set of naval rules for my needs.

[Last Hussar]

Steve - I have GQ1/2 - would you say Nimitz is a better option? I've been looking at getting back into WW2 Naval.

For aiming point, would it be with considering some sort of markers on each side of the midpoint of the base?

[steve_holmes_11]

Steve - I have GQ1/2 - would you say Nimitz is a better option? I've been looking at getting back into WW2 Naval.

For aiming point, would it be with considering some sort of markers on each side of the midpoint of the base?

I prefer Nimitz to GQ 1/2.

I've played both and GQ felt like more of a grind and required a much larger table (even at centimetre scale).

Both work on abstractions, though Nimitz typically uses fewer, broader categories (I consider them well chosen).

Nimitz, for example, avoids the need for elaborate calculations.
It uses two range bands for two weights of gun.
  * Fear not, your 16" guns will do more damage than competing 14" or 8" "Heavy" guns.

It uses three armour ratings for battleships and three for cruisers.
Its torpedo method is similar enough to gunfire to not grind the game to a halt.

 


Something I neglected to mention is that Nimitz comes with a campaign system Halsey.
I've not read the Halsey part of the book yet, so son't comment on how it plays.

I have established that its map moves take place on a squared grid.
It introduces airstrikes, submarines, repairs (and frogmen if you're Italian).
All the stuff that actually happened, but isn't easily accommodated on a tabletop.



I've considered adding dots to the side of my ship's bases to mark their location.
I think I have about 250 little boats, so that's a lot of work.

I'm also considering adding an offset mark to the templates, which isn't as precise.
But it involves updating just four items instead of 250.

[fred.]

I found myself suffering the dreaded WRG "brain fog" into relatively small games.
Several factors could be at play here:
 * Playing new rules and playing solo.
 * Handling rosters, shooting factors and the sole look up table (I've lost the habit of going form roster to QRS to table).
 * The grey cells decelerating with age.

I hope this will improve with practice and when playing with live opponents.

I think it will be a lot to do with new rules and playing solo. I find that a second player helps with remembering key bits of the rules - or at least challenging when they think something is wrong / not in their favour!

The same with playing both sides, it takes more mental effort. 

Will be interested to see how the games develop as you get more familiar - I suspect there is a role for destroyers, otherwise they would have been abstracted away. Sam's Rommel only has Tanks, Infantry and Artillery. All other unit types are abstracted away - so he's not afraid to take some pretty radical design choices to get a game of the right scale. 

[steve_holmes_11]

I think it will be a lot to do with new rules and playing solo. I find that a second player helps with remembering key bits of the rules - or at least challenging when they think something is wrong / not in their favour!

The same with playing both sides, it takes more mental effort.

Will be interested to see how the games develop as you get more familiar - I suspect there is a role for destroyers, otherwise they would have been abstracted away. Sam's Rommel only has Tanks, Infantry and Artillery. All other unit types are abstracted away - so he's not afraid to take some pretty radical design choices to get a game of the right scale.

Yes, I expect growing familiarity and a second player will help.


I'm working on the assumption that Destroyer's role will be similar to that in the 1930s - 40s.
 * Blowing up bigger ships with torpedoes.
 * Chasing off enemy destroyers.
 * Blowing up submarines (in campaign games).

I think their lack of impact in my early game reflected my lack of sailing ability.
I presently have all the skills of a submarine deckhand in the Zimbabwean navy.
This ought to improve with practice.

[pierre the shy]

Not played Nimitz but heard some pretty good comments about them.

I'm a long term GQ 1/2 player myself. They tick all my WW1/2 naval boxes and are very good at handling night actions and torpedoes etc while also reflecting historical differences between various navies.   

[paulr]

Seconded, looking forward to using GQ 1/2 in the Med next weekend

I still think the Strategic 'set' should have been Nimitz and the tactical 'set' Halsey (assuming they favour rash aggression )