 July 9, 2009 - 8:40am | Has anyone made any effort to build a simplfied version of Knight Hawks? Maybe one based on the original rules but that simplifies the fighting system so that you could easily adjudicate a fleet sized battle in a small amount of time? An example of simplified fleet combat would be "A Sky Full of Ships" located here: http://www.hwcn.org/%7Eao421/fleet.html This could be very useful if you wanted to play out large fleet actions in a game and allow your PC's to control parts of the fleet. I have been working on just such a system but am getting bogged down on parts and would much rather collaborate if there is anyone else out there. Thoughts? |
 July 9, 2009 - 9:53am | I started looking at converting Knight Hawks over to "A Call to Arms 2nd Ed." by Mongoose publishing. Havent done anything with it in awhile though. Knight Hawks is fairly simple, but the last time I had a massive battle it seemed like it took an hour just to resolve 2 turns. I think there was discussion about just using the Basic KH for larger battles. It would definately cut back on the bog-rolls. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
 July 9, 2009 - 4:15pm | To set something up like that should not be that hard if you put your mind to it. The group that I game with, yes SF/KH, have boiled large fleet battles down to a very quick battle into a quick nutshell battle. A fleet with 20 to 30 ships can take about 2 hours most of it being deciding on manuvres and what to shoot at first. |
 July 9, 2009 - 8:12pm | I think there was discussion about just using the Basic KH for larger battles. It would definately cut back on the bog-rolls. Yep, for smaller scale encounters the skills table works fine, along with the damage table modifiers. For larger scale encounters (fleet battles etc) the basic game and straight hull damage is more than sufficient. Barring that, there will be a lot of extra dice rolling and data recording on a large scale battle, not to mention you'd have to keep track of the skill level for each and every gunner in every ship (even using the universal table inteh KH campaign book can be tedious). |
 July 9, 2009 - 8:32pm | I once chatted by email with a guy who had played both Full Thrust and Knight Hawks- mostly I was picking his brains for a comparison of both games One thing He did say that intrigued me was that he and his friends and re-fought a WW2 naval battle with Knight Hawks just using the night hawk ship classes on a 1 to 1 basis for the wet navy ships- I think he said it took like 8 hour to resolve. His opinion was that KH was better for larger battles (I assume using the basic rules though he didn't specify). I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 July 9, 2009 - 9:11pm | I'm used to Star Fleet Battles, so as far as I'm concerned, Knight Hawks IS the simplified version. "Rome didn't build an empire by having meetings. They did it by killing those who stood in their way." |
 July 10, 2009 - 8:54am | A Sky Full Of Ships is interesting, a bit of FT Lite, and definitely easier than AVT. More after I take the system for a test drive. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 10, 2009 - 9:57am | I'm used to Star Fleet Battles, so as far as I'm concerned, Knight Hawks IS the simplified version. I use to play 1st ed SFB and as I remember large battles will bog down with the damage allocation system unless of course you just use massive concentrated fire so that enough damage is done to a ship to destroy it outright and save you from having to allocate damage. which is a good tactic as a ship blowing up will damage others within a short range. Have you done many massed fleet battles? how did they shake out? how did you prevent the damage system from bogging the game? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 10, 2009 - 5:09pm | I'm used to Star Fleet Battles, so as far as I'm concerned, Knight Hawks IS the simplified version. I use to play 1st ed SFB and as I remember large battles will bog down with the damage allocation system unless of course you just use massive concentrated fire so that enough damage is done to a ship to destroy it outright and save you from having to allocate damage. which is a good tactic as a ship blowing up will damage others within a short range. Have you done many massed fleet battles? how did they shake out? how did you prevent the damage system from bogging the game? You don't. Coffee helps. Seriously, unless you mass ships three against one, fire lots of hellbores, or use the X-ship rules, you're looking at a long grind. What I'd love to see is a space sim that plays like the old paper and dice Harpoon. That was a fast game. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 July 10, 2009 - 6:22pm | What I'd love to see is a space sim that plays like the old paper and dice Harpoon. That was a fast game. As I remember, Harpoon was modern naval battles rules. One hit - one kill. If you could hit a ship with a missle, it was gone. Even if not sunk, it was out of the fight. The only real world naval battle I remember anything about was the Falklands War (1982). I was living in the UK at the time. One hit with a missile or torpedo the ship was gone. Missiles usually started a fire that quickly got out of control. Bombs took longer to sink a ship. But it was a question of tactics. The Argies did low level bombing to avoid being shot down and many of the bombs went right through the ship before the fuses could arm and explode them. Thus they did less damage. The few times that a bomb exploded inside the ship it did very great damage. A space battle might be like this. If you can hit a ship with a missile, it is dead. |
July 10, 2009 - 7:04pm | Have you done many massed fleet battles? how did they shake out? how did you prevent the damage system from bogging the game? I've done a few. One thing that I found that helps is to use multiple sets of colored dice. You can roll a lot of internals pretty fast if you're throwing four or five pairs of dice at a time. "Rome didn't build an empire by having meetings. They did it by killing those who stood in their way." |
July 10, 2009 - 7:13pm | In college I played a Naval Tactics game that was similar to Harpoon but used the real statistics and capabilities for the various systems. As I recall, I had to upgrade my security clearance to play it. My roommate and I were facing off with US and Soviet cruisers. At the end of each turn, the system tells you what you see: visually and on the various sensor systems. One time, I launched a missile at him and at the end of the turn, and he had radar - and visual - contact with my missile, at a range of about fifty feet. The turn ended just a fraction of a second before it hit. That let him respond, and we ended up sinking each other. "Rome didn't build an empire by having meetings. They did it by killing those who stood in their way." |
 July 11, 2009 - 12:48am | Re Harpoon Commander Bond was behind both the USNAWC ConSim update in the early 1980's, and Harpoon. Harpoon is pretty much the same game. The "general use" stats for the USNAWC game are pretty much matches for Harpoon... the "correct" stats were 3 digit precision, and we weren't allowed to study them. (We got to play it in NJROTC.) I later got Harpoon, and found it to be the same game, simplified a little, and with only 2 digit precision. Playing Harpoon, we got the same results for the Libyan engagement as we did when we played it "from the news" in class... and as the Navy Times reported. The Libyans fired, the US DD turns and CIWS goes hay-freaking-wire on them, and the US destroyer returns fire, sinking one and cripping the other. In 12 plays under Harpoon, only once did the US DD get sunk... In 2 of them, both Osa II boats went down... and that included a mutual destruction. Both closed range due to failed detections. Re Full Thrust: FT is BLOODY fast to play. It's a good solution, if you can map the weapons across. It's the single fastest tactical space combat game I've played... of literally dozens (counting RPGs). (Just counting counters on map or minis on table: 3 eds of SFB, 3 eds of starfire, 2 eds of FASA-Trek/STRPG, Babylon 5 Wars, Star Blazers Fleet Battle System, 2 eds of Spacemaster, SFKH, LUG-Trek RPG space combat, Mayday, Traveller Bk 2, MegaTraveller, Brilliant Lances, Renegade legion Interceptor, RL Leviathon, Aerotech, Battlespace, Lemmings in Space, Starfight, Spacemaster 1E TechLaw, Spacemaster 2E Star Strike, 2300 Space Cruiser, Space 1889 Ironclads and Ether Flyers, T20 Traveller's Handbook, SLAG!.) |
July 11, 2009 - 9:02am | What I'd love to see is a space sim that plays like the old paper and dice Harpoon. That was a fast game. As I remember, Harpoon was modern naval battles rules. One hit - one kill. If you could hit a ship with a missle, it was gone. Even if not sunk, it was out of the fight. The only real world naval battle I remember anything about was the Falklands War (1982). I was living in the UK at the time. One hit with a missile or torpedo the ship was gone. Missiles usually started a fire that quickly got out of control. Bombs took longer to sink a ship. But it was a question of tactics. The Argies did low level bombing to avoid being shot down and many of the bombs went right through the ship before the fuses could arm and explode them. Thus they did less damage. The few times that a bomb exploded inside the ship it did very great damage. A space battle might be like this. If you can hit a ship with a missile, it is dead. Right on all counts, pineapple. Harpoon is still my favorite sim(had fun pitting the Royal Navy against the USN), and it plays fast, unlike, say, Star Fleet Battles, Starfire , or even Battle Fleet Gothic(my intro to WH40K). Full Thrust and now A Sky Full Of Ships are the only two which come close to Harpoon in terms of ease and swiftness of play. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 11, 2009 - 9:10am | Re Harpoon Commander Bond was behind both the USNAWC ConSim update in the early 1980's, and Harpoon. Harpoon is pretty much the same game. The "general use" stats for the USNAWC game are pretty much matches for Harpoon... the "correct" stats were 3 digit precision, and we weren't allowed to study them. (We got to play it in NJROTC.) I later got Harpoon, and found it to be the same game, simplified a little, and with only 2 digit precision. Playing Harpoon, we got the same results for the Libyan engagement as we did when we played it "from the news" in class... and as the Navy Times reported. The Libyans fired, the US DD turns and CIWS goes hay-freaking-wire on them, and the US destroyer returns fire, sinking one and cripping the other. In 12 plays under Harpoon, only once did the US DD get sunk... In 2 of them, both Osa II boats went down... and that included a mutual destruction. Both closed range due to failed detections. Re Full Thrust: FT is BLOODY fast to play. It's a good solution, if you can map the weapons across. It's the single fastest tactical space combat game I've played... of literally dozens (counting RPGs). (Just counting counters on map or minis on table: 3 eds of SFB, 3 eds of starfire, 2 eds of FASA-Trek/STRPG, Babylon 5 Wars, Star Blazers Fleet Battle System, 2 eds of Spacemaster, SFKH, LUG-Trek RPG space combat, Mayday, Traveller Bk 2, MegaTraveller, Brilliant Lances, Renegade legion Interceptor, RL Leviathon, Aerotech, Battlespace, Lemmings in Space, Starfight, Spacemaster 1E TechLaw, Spacemaster 2E Star Strike, 2300 Space Cruiser, Space 1889 Ironclads and Ether Flyers, T20 Traveller's Handbook, SLAG!.) Oh, good, I did get Bond's rank right(for a post in another forum). When you did the Osas vs. the destroyer, did you have them both launch all their birds at once, or staggered, like the game example gives? Just curious. Speaking of curiousity, I'd love to see the Eliat scenario(first modern naval engagement, from the Six-Day War) gamed out, just to see if the Isrealis actually had a chance. @pineapple: I remember seeing the BBC footage from the Falklands(CBS replayed it), especially the honking huge hole an Argie Exocet blasted into the Sheffield(I believe)before she went down. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 11, 2009 - 10:48pm | I once chatted by email with a guy who had played both Full Thrust and Knight Hawks- mostly I was picking his brains for a comparison of both games One thing He did say that intrigued me was that he and his friends and re-fought a WW2 naval battle with Knight Hawks just using the night hawk ship classes on a 1 to 1 basis for the wet navy ships- I think he said it took like 8 hour to resolve. His opinion was that KH was better for larger battles (I assume using the basic rules though he didn't specify). The group that I play SF/KH with has done this also. The outcome is fairly cool with each battle. They almost stick to the history books. |
July 12, 2009 - 7:24am | The group that I play SF/KH with has done this also. The outcome is fairly cool with each battle. They almost stick to the history books. someone recently asked why bother with historic "re-fights" if you already know the answer- I find I learn stuff not necessarily about history per se but the act of doing the re-fight teaches you something that's hard to describe. Though one 7 years war historic battle where I was the cavalry commander on the right was super boring- one cavalry charge after another where the result was a bounce (both sides cavalry fell back tired) until the end when suddenly the enemy cav broke and then I was in the back field sabering infantry - not historic a historic result but exciting. I look back on that game as 3 hours of boredom and 20 minutes of excitement. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 12, 2009 - 8:39am | I once chatted by email with a guy who had played both Full Thrust and Knight Hawks- mostly I was picking his brains for a comparison of both games One thing He did say that intrigued me was that he and his friends and re-fought a WW2 naval battle with Knight Hawks just using the night hawk ship classes on a 1 to 1 basis for the wet navy ships- I think he said it took like 8 hour to resolve. His opinion was that KH was better for larger battles (I assume using the basic rules though he didn't specify). The group that I play SF/KH with has done this also. The outcome is fairly cool with each battle. They almost stick to the history books. So has your group ever done the action off Samar in '44(Taffy task forces versus Kurita's Center Group). "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 12, 2009 - 12:33pm | So has your group ever done the action off Samar in '44(Taffy task forces versus Kurita's Center Group). no not even that familiar with it could you PM me an order of battle and some brief info on the set up or is there a good link for that stuff on the web? just maybe I can do it without having to paint too many ships! I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 12, 2009 - 1:20pm | Better yet, I'll nerdwank a bit and drop a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taffy_3 or two: http://www.historyanimated.com/LeyteGulf.html "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 14, 2009 - 12:55pm | Oh, good, I did get Bond's rank right(for a post in another forum). When you did the Osas vs. the destroyer, did you have them both launch all their birds at once, or staggered, like the game example gives? Just curious. Speaking of curiousity, I'd love to see the Eliat scenario(first modern naval engagement, from the Six-Day War) gamed out, just to see if the Isrealis actually had a chance. On the Osa's: The Osas only won when both had detected the DD at the same time and launched in one volley each, AND caught the DD with only some of the CIWS bearing. The DD strategy: overwhelm each in turn... but the DD so outguns the pair that even splitting, it's going to win unless they can eliminate a CIWS (by position or by fire). |
July 14, 2009 - 3:59pm | Oh, good, I did get Bond's rank right(for a post in another forum). When you did the Osas vs. the destroyer, did you have them both launch all their birds at once, or staggered, like the game example gives? Just curious. Speaking of curiousity, I'd love to see the Eliat scenario(first modern naval engagement, from the Six-Day War) gamed out, just to see if the Isrealis actually had a chance. On the Osa's: The Osas only won when both had detected the DD at the same time and launched in one volley each, AND caught the DD with only some of the CIWS bearing. The DD strategy: overwhelm each in turn... but the DD so outguns the pair that even splitting, it's going to win unless they can eliminate a CIWS (by position or by fire). In other words, the Osas only win if a highly-improbable set of circumstances play out in their favor. That's been my observation as well. They couldn't even take a Forrest Sherman or a Gearing-class, which I thought was kind of odd. Plan to game out the scenario using the Hull's loadout from the Vietnam War(with the 8" MCLWG system installed), just to see how that works. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 15, 2009 - 1:02am | most of the plays, the Osa's did detect simultaneously.... they just were not positioned to overload only a single CIWS. |
July 15, 2009 - 3:17pm | I once chatted by email with a guy who had played both Full Thrust and Knight Hawks- mostly I was picking his brains for a comparison of both games One thing He did say that intrigued me was that he and his friends and re-fought a WW2 naval battle with Knight Hawks just using the night hawk ship classes on a 1 to 1 basis for the wet navy ships- I think he said it took like 8 hour to resolve. His opinion was that KH was better for larger battles (I assume using the basic rules though he didn't specify). The group that I play SF/KH with has done this also. The outcome is fairly cool with each battle. They almost stick to the history books. So has your group ever done the action off Samar in '44(Taffy task forces versus Kurita's Center Group). We played it in several ways. The first was the longest, all the ships were played one for one except for the Yamato it was represented by a Juggernaut this was the only difference we agreed upon. The setting was a n asteroid field in a low populated system with no space station, I don't remember where we chose, the Japanese/Sather had a base in one of the asteroids. Anyhow, with this setup being played twice, in both the Japanese were in for a whoopin if they had stayed for Halsey to return. The invasion troop ships would have been the prime target and in the extended battle would have been very high losses for the US. The second battle was played if Halsey would have stuck in the original plan and not chase the "bait" carriers. Again, it was a whoopin for the Japanese and the loses on the troop ships were almost none. The biggest loses were to the Japanese fighters. The US fighters made a severe impact in both due to larger numbers. The second scenario, was an exchange ratio, I do not remember how we concluded the ships choices but again the battleships were exchange 3 to 1 for Juggernauts. In the end, I do remember that the ships destroyed was nasty on both sides. With the ratios, we had to,if I remember right, at least triple the UPF fleet to meet the ratio. This one was also played twice, the first was the Sather stayed until the loses were high. in the end the Juggernauts were suicide in defense of the retreating Sather fleets with heavy loses on the UPF side including troop ships. The second battle, had the Sather retreat when things got bad for them. Neither sides had serious loses in this one. In both scenarios we figured both sides had veterans of average level 2 for well trained noobies and level 3 for about a third and level 4 for about 15 to 20 percent. If I remember correctly, both scenarios would have been a total lose for the Japanese/Sather and severe loses in troop ships for the US/UPF with many ships damaged bad but most were repairable for another round. In both scenarios, fighters and assault scouts were counted as fighters launched from the carriers. Escorts carried 5 fighters with 5 assault scouts, heavy carriers carried 10 fighters and 10 assault scouts. These were to make the tracking of them easier in groups of five and to beef up the carriers into a more realistic amount of firepower in fighters that that carried. |
July 15, 2009 - 3:35pm | Okay, sounds interesting. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 16, 2009 - 5:46pm | About the way I thought it would play out. I wouldn't have thought to use assault scouts for the Avengers, but I can see how that would work out...the Campaign Book(least the remastered edition) does describe them basically as heavy fighters. A small question, though: The Japanese, by the time in question, were hurting for trained sailors and airmen, and had little in the way of expirienced personnel. Wouldn't it have been more realistic to adjust the Sathar side's skills accordingly, or no. The battle off Samar is one of my favorite tactical problems simply because it shows a smaller force can hold off a larger force, given the right amounts of skill, luck and determination. All your other choices to represent the IJN in this scenario(using a Juggernaut for the Yamato, for example)made perfect sense(the Yamato was the Juggernaut of its time, after all, enough for Congress to almost lay down the Nevada-class in response); I assume, of course, Sathar heavy cruisers stood in for the "lesser" Japanese battlewagons and heavy cruisers. Same in the scenario where Halsey had stuck to plan, I assume you used heavy cruisers to represent the older battleships. Very well played, I just wish I could've been there. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 20, 2009 - 3:48pm | We all agreed that the Japanese/Sather would not have had a good chance without the experience in their fleets, so we made their experience levels higher much higher to see if they would have made a difference had they had a more robust training ability. We did not use kamikazes until the battle was going bad for them. Also, the weapons rules, in our discussions, had to be modified to meet the weapons arsenal available to both sides. On for instance, multiple torpedo launches in the same combat turn, strafing weapons, lose the seekers and canons, more ICMs could be carried, and a few more ships had to be made. There were three Juggernauts in the Japanese/Sather fleets for the big ship effect and the fighters. We kept the current battleships and made some more heavily armed heavy cruisers for the Japanese/Sather by replacing the weapons that were removed from the game and lowered some of the HP on some of the ships to reflect an older ship. We made three classes of laser weapons for the primary weapons. The big guns were the EB and PB which we removed from anything smaller than the cruiser and replaced them with LB or one of the other weapons from the laser class weapons. The AR played the roll of bombs, torpedoes were torpedoes, however all ships had them even the fighter had one. The lasers were, the strafer that replaced the machine-guns I think it had only 300 shots it could make in 10 shot in a burst, the laser array played the roll of pompom guns, and the laser battery played the roll of the 9 and 12 inch guns. The EB played in as the 14 inch with range modifications and the PB stared as anything larger than 14 inch. As you can see much of the technology was reserved for the larger ships only. There was some other things we did but I do not remember what they were. We had to re-invent the combat system to accompany such a large fleet actions. I do not recall everything but we had a barrage shot from multiple ships that made things much easier and deadlier. We had an instant kill rule but I don't think we used it. All fighters were in groups of five, if there was less it was battle damage that was reflected as damages and losses in the group. I will post more as I remember or I find my notebook or get the info from my group. The last re-enactment we were planning was Midway, but the guys have been sparse in keeping in contact with maybe when winter starts we can play it out. The other was the only ship to ship battle with the English and Germans in the North Sea in an all out battle. Just keep in mind that big fleet battles like in the Pacific WWII tend to drag on and can get bogged done just due to the large numbers of ships and planes that are involved. If anyone wants to use this information, let me know. Ask any questions for more information. If enough people ar interested, I'll just have to post the rules for it that I have, right? |
July 21, 2009 - 1:29am | Count me in. I'm interested. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
July 21, 2009 - 4:11am | I would like to see what you came up with. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
July 22, 2009 - 7:04pm | I am currently in classes and finals are this week. The earliest that I will be able to post any major amount is next Monday. However, feel free to post questions for now. I will be in passively on here to check for any questions for now. Would a new forum be better or just post it here? Maybe it should be posted under game talk since it is game play in Star Frontiers. Maybe we need a re-enactment game play forum. Any suggestions? |
July 27, 2009 - 6:04pm | Ok, it's Monday, finals are over, what do want to see first? weapons; combat rules; ships; |
