PDA

View Full Version : Time per turn



Pseudotheist
11-05-2013, 19:03
I saw some interesting discussions in another thread that I thought warranted a dedicated thread of their own. Specifically discussion about how long each turn in the game represents. I've gouted a cople relevant posts, and add my quick though on timing after...


OK so here's where I was going with this.

Just as a back of the envelope calculation it seems to me like the average ship movement, between the length of the arrow on the movement card and the ship base, is about 5 inches.

As the ship scale is 1:1000, that means 5000 actual inches or about 417 feet.
If the speed of the ship is, say, 6 knots that translates to about 36,450 feet per hour.

At this rate, the 417 feet would be covered in about 41 seconds.
Multiplying this by 20 turns is a bit under 15 minutes of actual engagement time (13 min 40 sec actually).

The question is, did the 20 turn game seem to represent an engagement of about 13 - 15 minutes?


Don't work on the model scale, work on the weapon range. If you assume model scale = ground scale you'll need to increase the length of the ruler to about 6 feet. I did some calcs to see what a reasonable turn length was in terms of time and, depending on what assumptions you make about gunnery ranges in the game I worked out with a time scale of 3-6 minutes, which would make your 16-20 turn game something in the order of 48-120 minutes, which feels about right. And this time aspect is one of the reasons I don't use the 2 card movement system but just stick with a single card play (something I'm liking more and more with WGF, btw).

BUT

Its a game. Like WGF and WGS it is not a simulation

Don't over analyse it.

That is the way to madness

I had been thinking about this before coming across these posts, but thought that there's another method for calculating time in this game: rate of fire. According to the highly reliable source Wikipedia, "A typical broadside of a Royal Navy ship of the late 18th century could be fired 2-3 times in approximately 5 minutes". That leads me to the simple approximation of 2 rounds in about 4 minutes, one round every other minute, 2 turns to load and fire the cannons. Therefore, we come to the "classic D&D aproximation" of one minute per combat round. I particularly like this figure because it's a nice round unit, and in the ballpark of the 41 second movement based estimation.

One minute rounds are still a ways off from the ranged base calcualtions, but if I understand those calcualtions correctly, a stickler could triple the range finder to make all three calculations in the same ballpark. I've gotten the impression from WoG that the range in this system tends to be somewhat arbitary and based more on the size of the box than historical accuracy anyway. And as David says, "Don't over analyse it." Still, just curious if there were any other thoughts of the subject.

7eat51
11-06-2013, 06:09
Having played in two games, and having run a couple others, tripling the gunnery range would create a significantly different game as people would choose different maneuvers due to a different set of requirement for firing - no need to getup close unless desiring to inflict greater damage or to board. I see no reason to not give such an idea a try. If anything, it could be a fun alternative now-and-then. I had the opportunity to play Aaron's NT game at Rock-Con. I fired rounds at ships between 50 and 60 inches away. That made for a very different type of game. It was a lot of fun.

Your one-minute rule could easily capture the feel of the game I ran at Rock-Con. Interesting proposal.

RichardPF
11-06-2013, 07:07
Having played in two games, and having run a couple others, tripling the gunnery range would create a significantly different game as people would choose different maneuvers due to a different set of requirement for firing - no need to getup close unless desiring to inflict greater damage or to board. I see no reason to not give such an idea a try. If anything, it could be a fun alternative now-and-then. I had the opportunity to play Aaron's NT game at Rock-Con. I fired rounds at ships between 50 and 60 inches away. That made for a very different type of game. It was a lot of fun.

Your one-minute rule could easily capture the feel of the game I ran at Rock-Con. Interesting proposal.

I understand that "close" is a relative term and perhaps my knowledge of encounters it too limited,
but the accounts that I have read seem to always talk about rather close-in exchanges of fire.

7eat51
11-06-2013, 07:15
I understand that "close" is a relative term and perhaps my knowledge of encounters it too limited,
but the accounts that I have read seem to always talk about rather close-in exchanges of fire.

Given the size of the ships, I am not sure if an additional ruler or two would make them seem far apart. For example, 18-pounders were accurate at a 1-mile range according to this source: http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/upload/18_Pounder_Cannon.pdf

I think it depends upon how players in a given game want to view scale.

Old Ironsides
11-06-2013, 09:31
It all depends on ground scale and space available. I liked the way SoG played. What I just read in Six Frigates Contellations opened up at 300 yrds.

In Naval Thunder which Eric mentioned 1"=500yrds and it can be played with any scale minis. I have seen some play with 1/1000 and to give a better visual they change the scale to 1"=250 yrds which doubles the ranges and movement rates so the ships are not on top of each other when firing. With Pre-dreads where evective range is 10,000yrds or less this can be done on most gaming tables, but WWII is a different story as you could be firing at extreme range of 8+feet away.

In SoG I could see the value of increasing the scale as it would eliminate some of the confusion with collisions for those wishing only to engage in a gunnery duel. The trade off though is the game are becomes bigger and probably no longer fits on a singe mat.

Avi
11-06-2013, 10:49
Given the size of the ships, I am not sure if an additional ruler or two would make them seem far apart. For example, 18-pounders were accurate at a 1-mile range according to this source: http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/upload/18_Pounder_Cannon.pdf

I think it depends upon how players in a given game want to view scale.

Shooting on ground and shooting at sea are two very different things. The accuracy of unguided weapons with no stabilizers is very low - so the ranges are much shorter. As both shooting platform and target are moving there
is also no use for "corrective fire" (no idea what the proper term in English is...)

The interesting bit of information is actually the rate of fire which seems to contradict the rapid fire rate in the OP.
If its 6-10 minute between shots each play "round" should be 3-5 minutes. :cannon::cannonboom:

David Manley
11-06-2013, 13:54
Opening engagement distances were anything from 1500-2000 yards down to point blank. Maximum range of something like an 18 or 24pdr was in the order of 2500 to 3000 yards (depending on which reference you look at). The reloading aspect of the game is more of a game mechanic than a representation of individual salvoes. IIRC it came about in order to increase the time it was taking to disable ships through gunfire, which was awfully fast.

Pseudotheist
11-06-2013, 18:24
The reloading aspect of the game is more of a game mechanic than a representation of individual salvoes.
I suspect a similar claim could be made some extent about every aspect of the game.

7eat51
11-06-2013, 19:53
The reloading aspect of the game is more of a game mechanic than a representation of individual salvoes. IIRC it came about in order to increase the time it was taking to disable ships through gunfire, which was awfully fast.

Interesting bit a development history. I think one thing GMs should consider is how and when to respawn, especially at cons. You want folks to have a good time, and that means keeping them in the game as best as you can. In one of the demo games, a frigate was raked by an SoL, and the chits that were drawn were devastating. In almost one salvo, the frigate, and player, was effectively taken out of the game.

Naharaht
11-07-2013, 00:00
Surely the time of each turn is rather arbitrary anyway because the real life battles generally lasted for hours. A turn moving into position in real life would take a longer time than one at close range where firing occurs.

David Manley
11-07-2013, 03:12
Yes, thats another important consideration.

Berthier
11-07-2013, 04:10
Interesting bit a development history. I think one thing GMs should consider is how and when to respawn, especially at cons. You want folks to have a good time, and that means keeping them in the game as best as you can. In one of the demo games, a frigate was raked by an SoL, and the chits that were drawn were devastating. In almost one salvo, the frigate, and player, was effectively taken out of the game.

Well apart from very bad form on the part of the SOL's Captain, that's pretty much what you would expect from a rake of a frigate by a SOL. Historically frigates kept out of the way of a SOL if at all possible and in battle were usually not fired upon unless firing first. The exception would be if several frigates could come upon a SOL unescorted or with minimal escort in which case they may become a pack of dogs!

7eat51
11-07-2013, 05:36
Well apart from very bad form on the part of the SOL's Captain, that's pretty much what you would expect from a rake of a frigate by a SOL. Historically frigates kept out of the way of a SOL if at all possible and in battle were usually not fired upon unless firing first. The exception would be if several frigates could come upon a SOL unescorted or with minimal escort in which case they may become a pack of dogs!

This would make for an interesting scenario rule, especially if based on a historical narrative - SoLs unable to fire upon a frigate unless fired upon first. Time to start gathering historical stories of such engagements.

David Manley
11-07-2013, 07:49
Worked both ways though. Frigates were expected to steer clear of the big boys. A SoL commander would have been entirely correct to engage a frigate that he suspected was becoming a threat.

DeRuyter
11-07-2013, 08:38
This would make for an interesting scenario rule, especially if based on a historical narrative - SoLs unable to fire upon a frigate unless fired upon first. Time to start gathering historical stories of such engagements.

An incident at the Battle of the Nile makes clear both this principle and the devastating effect of a frigate taking a full broadside from a 74:

"The third British ship into action was HMS Orion under Captain Sir James Saumarez, which rounded the engagement at the head of the battle line and passed between the French main line and the frigates that lay closer inshore.[87] As he did so, the frigate Sérieuse opened fire on Orion, wounding two men. The convention in naval warfare of the time was that ships of the line did not attack frigates when there were ships of equal size to engage, but in firing first French Captain Claude-Jean Martin had negated the rule. Saumarez waited until the frigate was at close range before replying.[88] Orion needed just one broadside to reduce the frigate to a wreck, and Martin's disabled ship drifted away over the shoal.[72] During the delay this detour caused, two other British ships joined the battle: Theseus, which had been disguised as a first-rate ship,[89] followed Foley's track across Guerrier's bow. Miller steered his ship through the middle of the melee between the anchored British and French ships until he encountered the third French ship, Spartiate. Anchoring to port, Miller's ship opened fire at close range. HMS Audacious under Captain Davidge Gould crossed the French line between Guerrier and Conquérant, anchoring between the ships and raking them both.[86][Note B] Orion then rejoined the action further south than intended, firing on the fifth French ship, Peuple Souverain, and Admiral Blanquet's flagship, Franklin.[72]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nile

Eric

Pseudotheist
11-07-2013, 14:56
This would make for an interesting scenario rule, especially if based on a historical narrative - SoLs unable to fire upon a frigate unless fired upon first. Time to start gathering historical stories of such engagements.
I think a blanket prohibition would be overkill, but I could see a scenario similar to the following:

12 ship game; each side has 2 SoLs & 4 Frigates
3 points per Frigate destroyed; 7 points per SoL destroyed
While SoLs on both sides are still in play, SoLs earn -1 point for firing on a Frigate that has not fired on an SoL

csadn
11-07-2013, 15:45
Surely the time of each turn is rather arbitrary anyway because the real life battles generally lasted for hours. A turn moving into position in real life would take a longer time than one at close range where firing occurs.


Yes, thats another important consideration.

And stop calling us Surely.

;)

Naharaht
11-08-2013, 00:07
Aye, Aye, Lieutenant. :salute: