PDA

View Full Version : GAMES



Capt P
12-07-2011, 16:39
After all the chat in here I was looking for my copy of Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Alas not sure where it is but what did I find but a board game from Milton Bradley called BROADSIDE. There may be some of you out there that remember this game from the 60's. I may have to pull it out and have a battle with the wife. Oh and for all the other flyboys I also have the DOGFIGHT game.

Tommy Z
12-07-2011, 16:58
I remember playing Dogfight at the neighbors house quite often!

David Manley
12-07-2011, 16:59
One of my prize possessions is an old board game called "Trafalgar" - complete with model ships with removable masts, "damage" cards on which you placed small plastic cannon to show the number of guns in each broadside, etc. lovely game :)

366

Capt P
12-07-2011, 17:51
Sounds like a little like BROADSIDE. I have to pull it out and remember how it is played afterall that was about 45 years ago. They also had removable masts for damage but can't remember how the damage was done. I see a project for this weekend.

Capt P
12-07-2011, 17:53
DOGFIGHTS with a Spad and Triplane if I remember right.

Capt P
12-07-2011, 17:59
I guess DOGFIGHT was my first feel of Wings.

The Cowman
12-07-2011, 18:51
I played a few games of Dogfight back in the day... but really did not remember doing so until just now. A buddy of mine and I used to play Wooden Ships and Iron Men all the time as well!

Old Salt
12-07-2011, 19:07
I sold or gave away all my old war games, no one to play with. Wish I had some of them now

Berthier
12-07-2011, 20:16
I kept most of my wargames, including magazine wargames I probably have 500+. Most of these are from SPI but there are smatterings of many of the other publishers. My first "wargame" was probably "Hit the beach" by MB.

Bluedevil
12-08-2011, 07:11
One of my prize possessions is an old board game called "Trafalgar" - complete with model ships with removable masts, "damage" cards on which you placed small plastic cannon to show the number of guns in each broadside, etc. lovely game :)

366

I've got that one too But I've got my doubts about the state that it is ... ;)

Capt P
12-08-2011, 15:21
I remember my first game and still have it. It was Gettysburg by Avalon Hill. Think I bought it in 1960 for .50 cents. At that time I think they only had Gettysburg and Tactics II. Oh and I still have Hit the Beach. For all you pilots I just posted a link to a neat video of WWI planes in Areodrome.

csadn
12-08-2011, 17:10
DOGFIGHTS with a Spad and Triplane if I remember right.

SPAD and Fokker D.VII, actually.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1509/dogfight

Anav
12-08-2011, 17:38
I love WSIM. rules and counters can be found on line.

Capt P
12-09-2011, 16:46
Just pulled it out from a pile of things ( old BB cards) and you are correct.

Capt P
12-10-2011, 16:19
Also pulled out the Broadside game and has some real neat pictures. I have to scan them and post in picture album.

csadn
12-10-2011, 17:53
Also pulled out the Broadside game and has some real neat pictures. I have to scan them and post in picture album.

Would this be the Hopelessly Broken First Edition version, or the Second Edition where they fixed the broken-ness?

Capt P
12-10-2011, 18:15
Well I guess it was the first addition since I got it when iot came out. But the pics are good.

Capt P
12-10-2011, 18:19
Tell me what was borken.

Capt P
12-10-2011, 18:24
I have BROADSIDE/DOGFIGHR & HIT THE BEACH. I think since they are about 45 years old must be good.

csadn
12-11-2011, 16:33
Tell me what was borken.

Basically: In 1e, it is possible for the Blue player to arrange his forces such that the Red player cannot win.

In order to accomplish this, Blue must do the following (note: Directions here have the Blue player's merchantmen on the "North" edge of the board):

1) Place both "hit" cannon, and all three "sunk" buoys, on the East port entry.
2) Place three schooners on the three starting spaces due North of the West port entry (which, from #1, will have the "Miss" and "Safe" defenses).
3) Place one frigate each due North of the spaces forming the crook of the "L"s needed to maneuver around the buoy spaces.

Red's starting positions mean only two of his ships can move directly past the defense cannon and buoys directly into the harbor; the "sunk" buoys are there to ensure if Red moves a frigate or SoL past the cannons, said unit will be automatically destroyed at the buoys, while the "hit" cannon ensure the unit will take between 1 and 2 hits upon entering the narrows.

Blue's first move will not vary, no matter what Red does: Blue's first move must be to move one of his frigates in #3 down to the crook of the "L", thus blocking Red's passage through that "L". What happens next depends on what Red does:

1) If Red's first move puts a unit into the row between the cannon and buoys, then after Blue cuts off one of the "L"s, Red's only logical move is to move to the crook of the other "L"; at which point Blue's move is to move the other frigate from #3 down to cut off Red's passage. Since Red cannot attack again with this unit, if he moves it, Blue's response is to move the frigate into the space vacated by Red. Red is now effectively blocked from using the East passage; with guns pointing at him from each side, the buoys blocking forward progress, and the cannons guaranteeing damage for both entering and exiting Red units, the best-case damage reports for Red ships are:
a) schooners will be automatically sunk;
b) brigs will be sunk if they try to escape (one hit entering, one hit exiting);
c) frigates will be able to get out, but will be sunk if they try to re-enter;
d) SoLs will be able to enter and exit once, but if they enter again, they will be sunk on exiting.

Red might be able to sink a Blue frigate; but it will cost Red almost twice as many ships to accomplish the feat (for instance, it would take *all three* Red brigs to sink one Blue Frigate), and in the time required to do so, Blue can simply move up another frigate to replace it.

2) If for some reason Red does not immediately enter the East narrows, then after Blue has moved the first #3 frigate, Blue must see where Red's second move places a ship; if the placement is due South of the West narrows, Blue must move one of the schooners from #2 above to the corresponding space in the West narrows between the cannon-line and the buoy-line; since Red cannot stop on a cannon-target space, this prevents Red entering via that column. If Red moves sideways to use a different column in the West Narrows, Blue simply moves another schooner down to block.

So at the end of five moves, Blue units should be placed approximately so: Blue frigates in the crooks of the "L"s of the East narrows; schooners in the three spaces between the cannon-target spaces and the buoy spaces in the West narrows. At this point, Red must concede the game, as it is impossible for him to bludgeon his way past Blue's defenses. This is the definition of Hopelessly Broken.

I believe BoardGameGeek has a photo of the *second* edition rules, which prevent certain of the Blue tactics described above being used:

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/505372/broadside?size=original ,

to wit: It is no longer permitted to place all three "sink" buoys in the same narrows; and ships may not only end a turn on a cannon space, but may stay there indefinitely without taking further damage (moving to a new space may result in damage, however). However, these changes, while somewhat helpful to Red, do not preclude Blue setting up a modified version of the 1e "shooting gallery" described above -- in essence, all Blue must do is move one of the end "sink" buoys to the other narrows, and add another frigate to #3 Setup to cover that column; the "Hit" cannons will cripple any units sent to destroy that frigate, while Blue moves another one up to replace it.

This game is a shining example of why "automatically" is a word which should *never* be used in game design.

swarbs
12-11-2011, 18:59
There's a nifty little Napoleonic era naval warfare card game called Enemy in Sight. Anyone played that? I always enjoyed it, very quick to teach and quick enough to play that its good for groups that aren't hard-core games or history buffs. Not a simulation by any means, but certainly has a bit of period naval feel to it.

Killick
12-12-2011, 04:37
Just to get into the feel of things till the miniatures come out I have been playing Wooden Ships Iron Men against my eldest daughter, I admit I have lost every time due to the fact that I have forgoton so much and she is a soliciter and does not forget a thing!

Capt P
12-12-2011, 17:10
You all just remined me I have a card game called 7th SEA. A friend gave it to me and have nevr played it. The cards are like the game MAGIC.I have to go through it as it seems there may be some cards that be AVATARS that Hajj is looking for.

Blackrose
12-14-2011, 14:27
There's a nifty little Napoleonic era naval warfare card game called Enemy in Sight. Anyone played that? I always enjoyed it, very quick to teach and quick enough to play that its good for groups that aren't hard-core games or history buffs. Not a simulation by any means, but certainly has a bit of period naval feel to it.

Yup, I have a copy. Very fun game; actually more fun than Naval Wars.
Karl

Berthier
12-15-2011, 02:30
Enemy in sight is still available as a second (maybe third) edition from Lost Battalion Games. Thw Avalon Hill version was fun, had some nice artwork for the vessels but needed some historical rules for the more particular of us.

For the current edition

http://www.lostbattaliongames.com/p-16-enemy-in-sight.aspx

and for more detail on the game itself including pictures

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/264/enemy-in-sight

Berthier
12-15-2011, 03:58
Also possibly of interest to some of you I stumbled on this one tonight

http://www.burningsea.com/page/home

Pirate multiplayer game, it says it's free but like most of them if you want to be successful you probably have to pay to gain advantages not available to free players. Not my cup of tea (or rum) butmight be yours.

Capt P
12-16-2011, 17:19
Daniel I didn't think about Lost Bn Games. I have their 10mm WWII games that are good. May have to look into it.

Berthier
12-16-2011, 21:48
Oh and we cant forget Warhammer Trafalgar rules system. Very attractive book, great paint guide, B&W diagrams, flags, historical information etc etc. Not sure how good the rules themselves are but the book is as I say very nice. I just checked on their website and it is actually on sale at half price (10poundsUK)!

The book also has nice lists for minor nation fleets, ship types, glossary as well. 144 pages, actual rules run about 26pages. I have a copy of the 1st ed and think it will be a very accessible and useful resource alongside SOG when it is released.

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/acatalog/Trafalgar.html

This second link takes a while to load (3.6meg) but allows you to view 10-12 pages from the book.

http://warhammer-historical.com/Aspreads/trafalgar.html

547

David Manley
12-16-2011, 23:45
Trafalgar features the production values we have come to expect from Warhammer Historical. The illustrations are good, the painting guide is good too (although I prefer Rod Langton's). I'm not a big fan of the rules as, whilst they play well (i.e. they are "playable" and easy to understand) I don't think they recreate AoS actions particularly well, and they are aimed at "big ship" actions - the fidelity in the ship stats is too coarse to allow the vast variety of frigates and unrated craft to be represented satisfactorily. Both areas are ones where you can alleviate the issues through house rules.

Capn Duff
12-17-2011, 04:12
(Sigh) I am afraid I dont know too many of these games, until SoG came along, well soon anyway, I have kept my feet firmly on the ground and in the air. I get seasick in the shower :(

Berthier
12-17-2011, 07:20
Ha I'm with you on that one Chris, I'm a landsman through and through, if we were meant to be at sea we'd have gills and fins!

Amazingly the history still fascinates me despite my personal aversion to floating on it.

Capt P
12-17-2011, 15:41
Never thought of Warhammer as Historical. Just thought of them as a fantasy gaming system.

Capt P
12-18-2011, 08:06
For those of you into more than historical naval games check out Spartian Games.

Berthier
12-18-2011, 18:53
A nice after action report of a GMT game "Flying Colors" scenario from the Anglo-Dutch wars

http://yockbosboardgames.blogspot.com/2011/12/flying-colors-gmt-doggersbank-1829.html

csadn
12-19-2011, 18:55
http://yockbosboardgames.blogspot.com/2011/12/flying-colors-gmt-doggersbank-1829.html

Seeing the remarks about "Balanced scenarios": I think the designer is trying to indicate just how few and far-between such balanced scenarios were in Reality. Let's face it: Anyone who knows anything about Trafalgar beyond the basics knows there is exactly zero chance of the Combined Fleet winning -- it's a question of "will any Combined Fleet units survive?". (IIRC: Nelson himself was disappointed -- briefly :) -- that the British had "only" captured 15 ships; he'd expected to nab at least 20.) Same for the American Revolutionary battles; the RN was in the middle of a rather unpleasant dispute between Tory and Whig officers during the AmRev, and the arguments blew up just in time for Ushant and Chesapeake Bay -- one wonders how those might have turned out if the RN had not been hamstrung by political infighting.

David Manley
12-20-2011, 03:23
Bloody politicians :)

On "balanced scenarios" I once played a massive wargame (1/300 modern micro armour at ground scale = model scale on the old BAE Terrain Model at Filton - a massive model of the German countryside where it was permissible (of course necessary) to walk on the terrain to reach practically anything). Two of the players were instructors at the School of Infantry in Warminster ** and we got talking abouty balanced scenarios. One of them opined that in real life if the "scenario" is "balanced" toe grown ups hadn't done their homework properly, as the aim was for it to be as UNbalanced (in your favour) as possible. He did admit that could make a rather less than satisfactory wargame :)

** never go paintballing against these guys!!! Or even with them for that matter. went on a stag do, our team supplemented by our instructor friends. The other team were TV luvvies from some production company. Each time, as soon as the whistle blew the Instructors just vanished into the undergrowth and slotted the TV guys and girls in a couple of minutes. No blasting away indiscriminately, each one "tapped" just or twice. After 5 or 6 games we asked them to tone it down a bit as they wren't leaving us any targets to shoot at!!!

Niek_vD
12-20-2011, 05:04
Seeing the remarks about "Balanced scenarios": I think the designer is trying to indicate just how few and far-between such balanced scenarios were in Reality. Let's face it: Anyone who knows anything about Trafalgar beyond the basics knows there is exactly zero chance of the Combined Fleet winning -- it's a question of "will any Combined Fleet units survive?". (IIRC: Nelson himself was disappointed -- briefly :) -- that the British had "only" captured 15 ships; he'd expected to nab at least 20.) Same for the American Revolutionary battles; the RN was in the middle of a rather unpleasant dispute between Tory and Whig officers during the AmRev, and the arguments blew up just in time for Ushant and Chesapeake Bay -- one wonders how those might have turned out if the RN had not been hamstrung by political infighting.

Tried hard at the time to get equal Audacity in the game, exactly for scenario's like this one, the early Anglo-French battles in the American Revolutionary Wars, Minorca, and perhaps Camperdown. Alas, the designer and developer saw things otherwise. IIRC the early British Carronade DRM is overrated as well, should be just +1 on range 1-3 from 1781-1795. After that the real smashers (32- or even 68-pounders) became more common.

Equal Audacity is implemented easily, even with the rules as written: any time Audacity decides the order of things, roll a die: even, British go first, odd, non-British go first.

Minorca: Byng had a second-rate fleet, and he faced some relatively good French ships. Both at audacity 1. Do get the b-version of the British 66 and 68, the weaker a-ships are wrong.

From 1778 up until about 1781 the French were quite decent, and the British at a low, so both sides at audacity 1 is about right. After that the British got their act together and the French ran out of trained sailors for their new ships.

On Dogger Bank: no Dutch carronade modifier, but both sides at audacity 1 (2 if you want a short game...), and the Dutch use the British "firing low" modifier. Also, only the two British 74's had carronades.

Camperdown is debatable, not the best-trained of Dutch fleets. Again, no Dutch carronade modifier, and the Dutch use the British "firing low" modifier. For balance, both sides at audacity 1 (2 if you want a short game...). Historically, the Dutch were at audacity 1, and the British at 2.

Niek_vD
12-20-2011, 05:16
Two of the players were instructors at the School of Infantry in Warminster ** and we got talking abouty balanced scenarios. One of them opined that in real life if the "scenario" is "balanced" the grown ups hadn't done their homework properly, as the aim was for it to be as UNbalanced (in your favour) as possible. He did admit that could make a rather less than satisfactory wargame :)


Quite correct, picking your fight as advantageous as possible is what makes a good general. This was more or less the reasoning of the FC developer. However, as a player I like scenario's where it is OK for my opponent to choose sides.

David Manley
12-20-2011, 05:34
Niek, for those that don't have a copy of the game, could you explain what "audacity" represents in the rules? It sounds like an interesting concept.

Berthier
12-20-2011, 06:56
"Audacity: A relative measure of the historical aggressiveness
displayed by both sides in a particular scenario. Higher numbers
positively modify many battle-related die rolls."

2.2.2.5 Audacity Rating: In addition to the statistics noted on the
individual units, each nationality in a scenario is given an ‘Audacity’
rating. This value is a reflection of how the side behaved
historically in battle, and is an indication of the overall quality
and flexibility of the fleet and the tenacity of its commanders.

Audacity affects rolls for initiative (who goes first), rake rolls,ships firepower,striking liklihood,command transfer roll, command death from wounds liklihood. "Commander quality" of individual commanders is also sometimes used instead of the audacity rating.

csadn
12-20-2011, 17:16
"Audacity: A relative measure of the historical aggressiveness
displayed by both sides in a particular scenario. Higher numbers
positively modify many battle-related die rolls."

2.2.2.5 Audacity Rating: In addition to the statistics noted on the
individual units, each nationality in a scenario is given an ‘Audacity’
rating. This value is a reflection of how the side behaved
historically in battle, and is an indication of the overall quality
and flexibility of the fleet and the tenacity of its commanders.

Audacity affects rolls for initiative (who goes first), rake rolls,ships firepower,striking liklihood,command transfer roll, command death from wounds liklihood. "Commander quality" of individual commanders is also sometimes used instead of the audacity rating.

Huh -- about what I figured when I saw the word. Relates to what I was saying in another thread about how culture affects one's Navy -- the French Revolutionaries and Nazi Germany shared one factor: Commanders lived in fear of "the boss" and his secret police (witness what happened to Villeneuve after Trafalgar... :P ), which led to them, as it was phrased in _Patton_, "being more concerned with Not Losing a battle than with Winning it". It won't win a battle on its own, but it helps.

7eat51
02-05-2013, 16:16
I, regretfully, did the same. Now I am buying many of them again on ebay for prices I would rather not think about.


I sold or gave away all my old war games, no one to play with. Wish I had some of them now

Bluedevil
02-06-2013, 01:54
One of my prize possessions is an old board game called "Trafalgar" - complete with model ships with removable masts, "damage" cards on which you placed small plastic cannon to show the number of guns in each broadside, etc. lovely game :)

366


I've got the same hidden here somewhere in a cupboard... It was good for many fine gaming hours... :):):)

I think I'll get it out and have a game or two with my son...if I can talk him into it :rolleyes:

Volunteer
02-06-2013, 03:33
I did too Eric. I had the Avalon Hill games from the '60's, Gettysburg and Tobruk were my favorites. Then I had War of the Ring and Thieves World in the early '80's people gave me as gifts but never played them. Gave them all away, then I started having kids. Now one is in college and the other is 12 and anxious to play some wargames with her dad. Time's awasting!

7eat51
02-06-2013, 09:28
Avalon Hill's Richthofen's War was my introduction into games. Many fond memories. I need to check out some of the older games mentioned here - Dogfight, Broadsides, Trafalgar - I'm off to ebay I guess.

What does your 12 year old enjoy? There are so many games now, that you will have very little problem finding several you can enjoy together.


I did too Eric. I had the Avalon Hill games from the '60's, Gettysburg and Tobruk were my favorites. Then I had War of the Ring and Thieves World in the early '80's people gave me as gifts but never played them. Gave them all away, then I started having kids. Now one is in college and the other is 12 and anxious to play some wargames with her dad. Time's awasting!

Volunteer
02-07-2013, 03:54
She enjoys any board game there is. Monopoly, Stratego, Risk. As for wargaming, Kiss Me Hardy is the first and we have yet to play since I just got it. We are still trying to understand the rules. I won't be home for another week so I'm hoping we can clear off the dining table long enough to have a go while I'm home on the weekend. Not having anyone to play with for 20 years I haven't played anything. Back in the 80's I played Tactica ancients with a group in AK. In the late 70's & early 80's it was fantasy gaming in Fairbanks. I have still painted miniatures off and on when I could, sometimes going years without doing anything. We built a place in 2005 and I put in a hobby room in the basement in 2008 and started again when I had time. I only discovered 1:1200 Napoleonic ships over Christmas 2011 and they have become my passion. Plus my wife seems to like them better than the troops and doesn't give me as much grief about the amount of time I'm spending on them when I'm home. Sorry, probably way more than you wanted to hear.

7eat51
02-07-2013, 13:21
Don't be sorry for sharing. One of the best aspects of the Anchorage is getting to know the members of the community.


She enjoys any board game there is. Monopoly, Stratego, Risk. As for wargaming, Kiss Me Hardy is the first and we have yet to play since I just got it. We are still trying to understand the rules. I won't be home for another week so I'm hoping we can clear off the dining table long enough to have a go while I'm home on the weekend. Not having anyone to play with for 20 years I haven't played anything. Back in the 80's I played Tactica ancients with a group in AK. In the late 70's & early 80's it was fantasy gaming in Fairbanks. I have still painted miniatures off and on when I could, sometimes going years without doing anything. We built a place in 2005 and I put in a hobby room in the basement in 2008 and started again when I had time. I only discovered 1:1200 Napoleonic ships over Christmas 2011 and they have become my passion. Plus my wife seems to like them better than the troops and doesn't give me as much grief about the amount of time I'm spending on them when I'm home. Sorry, probably way more than you wanted to hear.

Union Jack
02-13-2013, 11:02
My first venture into this era was SPI game called Frigate...which I still have.

My second was playing with langton's Action Under Sail rules. Which I still have, albeit the 1st edition.

My third was Pieces of Eight, Peter Pig's 15mm rules, which I still have and have just bought the newest version for use with their smaler range of ships of which I now own 6. Buying a fleet of these in 15mm would be extremely expensive.

SeaRoyal20
03-07-2013, 12:54
Myself, I don't like "balanced" scenarios. If I want balanced, I'll play checkers which is what I say to people when they complain about my scenario designs. I NEVER balance it. No leader with an advantage waits until the other side is ready. They attack. The three things for me in a game is was it challenging, fun and did I do my best?

Sea Gull
03-07-2013, 17:01
Myself, I don't like "balanced" scenarios. If I want balanced, I'll play checkers which is what I say to people when they complain about my scenario designs. I NEVER balance it. No leader with an advantage waits until the other side is ready. They attack. The three things for me in a game is was it challenging, fun and did I do my best?

Too right ! Main criteria should be "did you enjoy it", even if it was a no win situation. That's what good commanders try and achieve - a no win situation for their opponent.

7eat51
03-07-2013, 20:29
Too right ! Main criteria should be "did you enjoy it", even if it was a no win situation. That's what good commanders try and achieve - a no win situation for their opponent.

Some of the funnest games I played was when I knew I would lose, but wanted to see how far I could get before losing. This was especially true in chess, a game in which I developed expertise at losing.

Sea Gull
03-08-2013, 02:03
I once played a WW2 game where a German platoon were trying to hold off a Russian onslaught. Russian casualties were recycled. There was no way the Germans could "win". Once the game was completed, we reset everything and then swapped sides. The winner being the one who held out the longest. Marvellous fun.

7eat51
03-08-2013, 07:58
I once played a WW2 game where a German platoon were trying to hold off a Russian onslaught. Russian casualties were recycled. There was no way the Germans could "win". Once the game was completed, we reset everything and then swapped sides. The winner being the one who held out the longest. Marvellous fun.

Exactly. I think we miss opportunities for fun games if we limit ourselves to even matches in which someone "wins" and someone "loses". Sometimes it is fun simply to see what would happen in a given scenario. This is especially true when playing with groups that aren't concerned about competition but hanging out together and playing a fun game - no one has dashed expectations. In SoG, there will be times when I play a historically accurate scenario, and times I will makeup something that catches my fancy and seems interesting, even if outrageous. For me, I like having a broad range of choices when establishing the goals/objectives of a game.

csadn
03-08-2013, 16:14
Some of the funnest games I played was when I knew I would lose, but wanted to see how far I could get before losing. This was especially true in chess, a game in which I developed expertise at losing.

The difference is: You knew going in you were going to eat it.

What annoys me is: GMs who try to "sell" a scenario as "balanced", but in fact have it set up so one side is all-but-guaranteed to lose. I am reminded of the occasion at genCon where I let a GM -- and the entire gaming hall -- know exactly how I felt about his creating an ACW cavalry battle where in order for the US side to damage the CS side, the US player to roll 7 or higher on 1d6....

7eat51
03-08-2013, 16:28
The difference is: You knew going in you were going to eat it.

What annoys me is: GMs who try to "sell" a scenario as "balanced", but in fact have it set up so one side is all-but-guaranteed to lose. I am reminded of the occasion at genCon where I let a GM -- and the entire gaming hall -- know exactly how I felt about his creating an ACW cavalry battle where in order for the US side to damage the CS side, the US player to roll 7 or higher on 1d6....

As you point out, there is a significant difference between difficult and disingenuous or just plain stupid. If folks are disheartened, the game ceased being a game. Then one has to ask, "What's the point?" If there is no chance to do anything, it is not a game. As we have been saying, winning does not have to mean you're the last one standing; but to get knocked down in the first round, without any other real possibility, is not much fun for anyone other than the self-indulgent individual who structured the game.

Vol, others, and I have been discussing shore scenarios. I would be happy to play one in which I knew it would be a bloodbath and I would "lose", as long as the game was structured interestingly and I had a chance to accomplish something, anything, of note. The challenge would be fun; if it is guaranteed that I can do nothing, there is no challenge, and hence, no fun.

Sea Gull
03-09-2013, 03:13
Situations like that, the no-win scenario, are generally best when one player has to do something as quickly as possible, the other has to hold on for a long as possible. you know that your forces are a forlorn hope and will get a really bloody nose, maybe even 100% casualties. But, did you gain enough time for the fleet to escape, the column to escape ... etc. Those are some of the best games to play in my opinion.

7eat51
03-09-2013, 06:34
Situations like that, the no-win scenario, are generally best when one player has to do something as quickly as possible, the other has to hold on for a long as possible. you know that your forces are a forlorn hope and will get a really bloody nose, maybe even 100% casualties. But, did you gain enough time for the fleet to escape, the column to escape ... etc. Those are some of the best games to play in my opinion.

Exactly. The important thing is for the "underdog" to have a realistic chance to accomplish something, regardless of what that something is. This is why it is important to think of victory in terms other than last one standing. This is why it is worthwhile to have different tiers of victory conditions. It provides room for a lot of creativity, which is important when one has a limited number of ships to draw upon.

Berthier
03-09-2013, 19:17
The Battle of Trafalgar, 1805: A Labour of Love, handmade by Roger Cormier.

from consimworld pictures by Gareth Scott http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?7@@.1dd4e196/8


One of the rarest of rare "board games" here's some pictures to show you how they did it back in the early 70's

PilGrim
03-13-2013, 03:57
My first venture into this era was SPI game called Frigate...which I still have.

My second was playing with langton's Action Under Sail rules. Which I still have, albeit the 1st edition.

My third was Pieces of Eight, Peter Pig's 15mm rules, which I still have and have just bought the newest version for use with their smaler range of ships of which I now own 6. Buying a fleet of these in 15mm would be extremely expensive.

I still have a couple of 15mm Frigates from Peter Pig - nice imposing models

Blackrose
03-14-2013, 09:24
Oh and we cant forget Warhammer Trafalgar rules system. Very attractive book, great paint guide, B&W diagrams, flags, historical information etc etc. Not sure how good the rules themselves are but the book is as I say very nice. I just checked on their website and it is actually on sale at half price (10poundsUK)!

The book also has nice lists for minor nation fleets, ship types, glossary as well. 144 pages, actual rules run about 26pages. I have a copy of the 1st ed and think it will be a very accessible and useful resource alongside SOG when it is released.

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/acatalog/Trafalgar.html

This second link takes a while to load (3.6meg) but allows you to view 10-12 pages from the book.

http://warhammer-historical.com/Aspreads/trafalgar.html

547

Never looked into this, but I played some ECW Historical. Then we got to our first game with a decent amount of troops, it all went bad. When my (small) regiment of Currisarrs blew apart 2 regiments of charging Horse with a stand and fire command (pistols), then followed it up with a charge at a skirmishing firelock company, in the open, which didn't have to check morale to stand a fire at us, and I couldn't rout them in melee, that was it for me.
They make good skirmish gaming rules, however.
Karl

OmegaLazarus
03-14-2013, 12:52
Myself, I don't like "balanced" scenarios. The three things for me in a game is was it challenging, fun and did I do my best?

I totally agree. I play games to have fun. Of course, I act in a manner to win, but if I win in a way that isn't fun (let's say huge divergence in die rolls etc.), then it is no good. I get fun from small actions within the game. Even if I lose a game, If my guys did something great within that game, that is what I will remember and what will have made it fun.


ALSO, for those who like WSIM, you can play it for free on-line. Go to youplay.it and sign up. I'm on a few games right now and since it is turn based (of course), I can do it at work when I have a minute or two of down time.

Sea Gull
03-14-2013, 15:16
I think of balanced in terms of an equal chance to achieve your victory conditions. These can be completely different to your opponents. Having the same number of ships, either by some point based mechanism or something else is artificial and no real substitute for good scenario design.

I recently came across a comment from a current military traininer (I think) who said if you're fighting a balanced scenario somebody, somewhere screwed up big time.

Now if we get a bit more of an inkling into the rules, maybe Ares will come up with a set of scenario design notes, we can start on creating some ... interesting scenarios.:cool:

SeaRoyal20
03-14-2013, 21:33
I like the way the game Sergeants (Lost Battalion Games) handles this. First each scenario provides each side with several order cards. Each side picks a random order card. So the Germans have a different mission than say the Americas. But since both are doing it on the same turf combat ensues. You get victory points for completing your orders, for prisoners and for killing enemy soldiers. Whoever has the most VPs wins. One game I played both the Americans and the Germans fulfilled their orders but the Germans won by 2VP because they killed the American Sergeant on the last turn. He was worth 7 VP. Different goals, different setup and no gamesmanship. As far from checkers as you can get but totally fair. Fair and by opportunity balanced. It was not balanced by points or some other artificial means. A great game.

7eat51
03-14-2013, 22:19
Lance, this could make for interesting scenarios. Intriguing mechanism: different orders, victory points for different objectives, etc. Not just head-on fighting.

We played a WoG game this past weekend in which both sides had different targets on the map; needless to say, dogfights ensued. The game ended in a draw.

SeaRoyal20
03-15-2013, 07:29
Eric,
I have always put a lot of thought into scenario design as I always get twitchy when I go to conventions and see game after game where troops are lined up from edge to edge on both sides and they charge and die. No maneuver, no strategy, just the luck of the dice. Without going into a long story, I once refused to attack in a game (never moved the pieces) because I had untrained troops that were supposed to attack elite troop in defensive positions suppported by elite heavy cav and a grand battery over open ground muddy ground (slowing movement). What would be the point?

This is why WoG and SoG, as well as Sergeants appeal to me. Lots of maneuver, a dynamic tactical challenge (aka try to guess their next move), limited attacks and a fair level of randomness (cards). The skill, instincts and luck of the player can therefore work together to provide an awesome game experience!

7eat51
03-15-2013, 10:14
Eric,
I have always put a lot of thought into scenario design as I always get twitchy when I go to conventions and see game after game where troops are lined up from edge to edge on both sides and they charge and die. No maneuver, no strategy, just the luck of the dice. Without going into a long story, I once refused to attack in a game (never moved the pieces) because I had untrained troops that were supposed to attack elite troop in defensive positions suppported by elite heavy cav and a grand battery over open ground muddy ground (slowing movement). What would be the point?

This is why WoG and SoG, as well as Sergeants appeal to me. Lots of maneuver, a dynamic tactical challenge (aka try to guess their next move), limited attacks and a fair level of randomness (cards). The skill, instincts and luck of the player can therefore work together to provide an awesome game experience!

It is interesting that when I was younger (35 years ago), total annihilation was always the goal within a game - we even bypassed the official rules to play this way. Now, I am interested in nuance, cleverness, and socializing - a more mature way of playing I think. I appreciate beautiful moves - even if they destroy me. I enjoy kibitzing with players. I enjoy thinking, and not just mechanical moving and rolling dice. I have no patience for the type of game you described. As mentioned earlier, I have no problem getting wiped out, even knowing it will happen, if the scenario is interesting and I have the chance to accomplish something.

When we have a set of completed rules and ship stats, I imagine we'll start seeing scenario generation and the building of solo rules. It will be fun to be here since the beginning and witness and be a part of the game's evolution. I really look forward to seeing what folks here will put together.

SeaRoyal20
03-15-2013, 10:39
Agreed!

OmegaLazarus
03-15-2013, 10:59
This is why WoG and SoG, as well as Sergeants appeal to me. Lots of maneuver, a dynamic tactical challenge (aka try to guess their next move), limited attacks and a fair level of randomness (cards). The skill, instincts and luck of the player can therefore work together to provide an awesome game experience!

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have been curious about Sergeants (due to my quest to play mini's without painting them). I saw you mentioned it and would like your (any anyone else's) opinion about the game. I figure this is good since we share love of WoG so I know we must enjoy and value similar game mechanics.

Anyone can respond or PM me if it is a long one so we don't kill the SoG thread. Thanks to anyone who shares some info!

SeaRoyal20
03-15-2013, 11:54
I will PM you later with a summary but in a word - excellent!

7eat51
03-15-2013, 16:32
I will PM you later with a summary but in a word - excellent!

Would you mind starting a thread? I am curious as well, having just seen it on a KS.

SeaRoyal20
03-16-2013, 15:36
Eric,
I will start a thread for that topic but so I do not violate any blog rules I will also talk about ARES games as well. Another snowstorm today has put me behind schedule. Where I live heavy wet snow is not news but it still messes up my day! All I an say is the groundhog was WRONG!! Anyway I will get the thread started today.

Cmmdre
04-14-2013, 02:13
Eric,
I have always put a lot of thought into scenario design as I always get twitchy when I go to conventions and see game after game where troops are lined up from edge to edge on both sides and they charge and die. No maneuver, no strategy, just the luck of the dice. Without going into a long story, I once refused to attack in a game (never moved the pieces) because I had untrained troops that were supposed to attack elite troop in defensive positions suppported by elite heavy cav and a grand battery over open ground muddy ground (slowing movement). What would be the point?

This is why WoG and SoG, as well as Sergeants appeal to me. Lots of maneuver, a dynamic tactical challenge (aka try to guess their next move), limited attacks and a fair level of randomness (cards). The skill, instincts and luck of the player can therefore work together to provide an awesome game experience!

I agree with your latter statements about skill, instinct, reading the other player or players in this game. The dynamic works.