PDA

View Full Version : Pondering the limits of the game



fredmiracle
12-21-2013, 16:17
Hi all,

these are questions I've been wondering about, and can't really answer until I get my hands on the game. But, since some of you have it now, or have played at conventions, maybe some impressions are forming...

1) A 74 is a 74 is a 74?

How different are the various ships from each other? In WoG, I'm sure each airplane has quite different characteristics. But in SoG, will each SoL or frigate be much alike to the next one? Especially given the granularity of the statistics? Presumably the major differentiating factor was crew, but that might be covered in the inexperienced crew rules, scenarios and the crew/captain deck.

What I'm getting at is, if each 74 looks mostly like the next (i.e. "this one has cream colored sails instead of white so you can tell it from her sister"), and each one has mostly the same stats and sailing characteristics, how compelling will it be as they offer more of them in the future--other than just as a matter of feeding unhealthy compulsions?


2) Maneuver decks

On a related note, leaving aside oddballs like Xebecs and galleys, are the 4 maneuver decks about all we are going to see? How different are they from each other? Is there room for gradations inbetween? Will Constitution, Victory, a sloop, or a merchantman need a different deck?


3) How well is this game going to scale down? We know a sloop is coming, presumably at burden 1. Will this basically allow high-end sloops to play a supporting role in the frigate game? Or will the system actually be able to differentiate small ships and allow small-ship scenarios to be played out effectively?


Just filling time, but I'd be interested to hear what people think now that more real data is becoming available...

Naharaht
12-21-2013, 19:01
The plastic models may look alike apart from colouring but in real life they would have been different because there was little in the way of mass production techniques when they were built, so even sister ships had differences. Also as you say, the quality of the crew would affect the performance and individual modifications made by the ship's captain.

fredmiracle
12-21-2013, 19:36
they would have been different because there was little in the way of mass production techniques when they were built, so even sister ships had differences.

I'm very curious whether and how such changes are reflected in the game. Does the use of only 4 maneuver decks hamstring such differentiation, for example? Does each ship (in the same class) have small differences in their attitude-zones relative to the wind, and does this affect play meaningfully? Do small differences in armament get lost in the granularity of the cannon ratings?

Coog
12-21-2013, 20:35
The three American 44's are good examples of how ships of the same design can be so different. President was considered a very fine sailing ship while Constitution was not quite as good as President but still had good sailing qualities. United States however was a real dog earning her the nickname of "Old Wagon" because she handled so badly.

Andy Blozinski
12-21-2013, 20:37
If they want to introduce Carronades, they could do it with cards similar to the Captain/Crew decks as the quick reference and to keep away from rulebook digging.

Diamondback
12-21-2013, 22:28
Well, I know that Ares considers most of the 1777 French 32's "close enough" to share the Concorde sculpt, but I've been tearing into this a little deeper...

The Slade Common 74's and Temeraires are two distinct sculpts, representing the two most common designs built. I may quibble about some of the choices they made for stretching the Victory sculpt, but again between British first-rates and the French Oceans, two distinct sculpts with loads of extension possibilities that don't need a lot of stretching to do. The Hebe sculpt is different than the two Wave 1 frigates, maybe a skosh bigger despite that I seem to recall seeing at least one of the three Concordes upgunned into the 38/40-gun class and most of those 32's eventually up-armed into 36's, but again, since that class and its descendants and copies were the backbones of BOTH the French AND British medium-frigate forces, can get a ludicrous amount of mileage out of it with little to no stretching.

Cmmdre
12-22-2013, 08:54
The three American 44's are good examples of how ships of the same design can be so different. President was considered a very fine sailing ship while Constitution was not quite as good as President but still had good sailing qualities. United States however was a real dog earning her the nickname of "Old Wagon" because she handled so badly.

Quite true. That didn't seem to effect Decatur's victory over the Macedonian though. Decatur out maneuvered Carden in the "Old Wagon."

fredmiracle
12-22-2013, 09:45
The three American 44's are good examples of how ships of the same design can be so different. President was considered a very fine sailing ship while Constitution was not quite as good as President but still had good sailing qualities. United States however was a real dog earning her the nickname of "Old Wagon" because she handled so badly.

So do we have any idea yet what these kinds of differences will mean in game terms?

In other words: if my math is right, then for each of the models constructed in the first wave, there are 8 variants provided (counting the double-sided printing). Surely, as we've discussed, all 8 ships of a given class didn't have identical sailing characteristics. So is this something that shows up in the models and stat cards? Or does it fall within the "margin of error" given the game mechanisms, granularity of the game stats, production limitations, etc.?

Nightmoss
12-22-2013, 11:22
So do we have any idea yet what these kinds of differences will mean in game terms?

In other words: if my math is right, then for each of the models constructed in the first wave, there are 8 variants provided (counting the double-sided printing). Surely, as we've discussed, all 8 ships of a given class didn't have identical sailing characteristics. So is this something that shows up in the models and stat cards? Or does it fall within the "margin of error" given the game mechanisms, granularity of the game stats, production limitations, etc.?

As I understand it SoG's overall game design is somewhere between a 'naval simulation' and a 'beer and pretzels' game. It's intended to be intuitive, with easy access for average gamers not necessarily into 'counting rivets' (like Wings of Glory). That's not to say there isn't room for expanding on the rules and game detail because many are already discussing it. There are a number of threads that touch on your question and several folks here will no doubt be able to answer your inquiries better than I. As I'm more of a modeler than a gamer I'm likely to play basic games that allow me to 'blow stuff up' rather than try to recreate historical reenactments using the SoG ships.

Here's one thread I found that touches on the SoG design:

http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?990-Excited-to-play-SoG-and-I-have-a-question-for-the-hard-core-naval-gamers&highlight=simulation

Cheers!

fredmiracle
12-22-2013, 13:18
As I understand it SoG's overall game design is somewhere between a 'naval simulation' and a 'beer and pretzels' game. It's intended to be intuitive, with easy access for average gamers not necessarily into 'counting rivets' (like Wings of Glory). That's not to say there isn't room for expanding on the rules and game detail because many are already discussing it. ...

Thanks for the link!

Honestly I'm happy for it not to be over-complicated. I have no problem if classes of ships are fairly generic (that is if a 74 is a 74 is a 74). Individual ships were different, in ways their captains cared about a lot--but perhaps such differences only played out at the margins, and not in more typical situations (?) And although I haven't seen the captain/crew deck, I'm imagining that it could supply a fair bit of the flavor of specific skippers and crews (in a way that could be easily extended).

However, if this is the case, then it seems to me that the "legs" for reprints will be a lot less (at least for me). From the KS I will have 12 SOL and 12 frigate models. In terms of numbers, that should just about get me through the biggest engagements I'm likely to fight. If a new 74 is issued, and it has, in effect, nearly identical stats/capabilities and a very similar appearance to the ships I already have, it will be harder for me to make a compelling case to buy it.

Not having played WoG, I'm not sure how planes are distinguished from one-another (in terms of gameplay), but am I correct in thinking each has their own maneuver deck? I was a little surprised they didn't do something similar with SoG--i.e. that seemed like the natural way to capture the subtle variations of sailing characteristics between different ships...

Gunner
12-22-2013, 14:43
I'm not a fan of each ship of the same class being different from each other, unless a point system is used for a campaign. If the ships are more or less generic, it's the player:rum: that wins the battle, not the ship.

Nightmoss
12-22-2013, 14:49
Thanks for the link!

Honestly I'm happy for it not to be over-complicated. I have no problem if classes of ships are fairly generic (that is if a 74 is a 74 is a 74). Individual ships were different, in ways their captains cared about a lot--but perhaps such differences only played out at the margins, and not in more typical situations (?) And although I haven't seen the captain/crew deck, I'm imagining that it could supply a fair bit of the flavor of specific skippers and crews (in a way that could be easily extended).

However, if this is the case, then it seems to me that the "legs" for reprints will be a lot less (at least for me). From the KS I will have 12 SOL and 12 frigate models. In terms of numbers, that should just about get me through the biggest engagements I'm likely to fight. If a new 74 is issued, and it has, in effect, nearly identical stats/capabilities and a very similar appearance to the ships I already have, it will be harder for me to make a compelling case to buy it.

Not having played WoG, I'm not sure how planes are distinguished from one-another (in terms of gameplay), but am I correct in thinking each has their own maneuver deck? I was a little surprised they didn't do something similar with SoG--i.e. that seemed like the natural way to capture the subtle variations of sailing characteristics between different ships...

You'll get better answers from folks like David, DB, and others here than you will from me when it involves the more technical aspects of the game, or naval gaming in general. I've only played one or two demos and just briefly scanned the rules, but I do think your questions/observations will be addressed via the ship cards, future maneuver decks, crew cards and/or captain cards?

"Legs" for reprints might not be a big focus right now as they've planned for completely new ships in the upcoming waves, which should add to the overall appeal of the game; 1st rates SoLs, merchants, smaller frigates and eventually some pirates?

The special editions of the Victory and Constitution should be interesting not only for the sculpts but for the ship statistics cards that will come with them. Seeing how Ares handles these ships might be a clue to how they handle reprint issues with ships of a similar rating (Britannia, Royal Sovereign, etc.)?

7eat51
12-22-2013, 15:36
Not having played WoG, I'm not sure how planes are distinguished from one-another (in terms of gameplay), but am I correct in thinking each has their own maneuver deck?

With WoG, each type of plane has a specific maneuver deck; so all Camels, for example, use the same deck. There are some plane types that share a given deck. For SoG, the closest comparison would be class of ship, for example, the Arrogant-class ships of the line. Whether the maneuver deck would be sufficiently different for Bellona- or other-class ships of the line, I do not know.

csadn
12-22-2013, 15:45
Quite true. That didn't seem to effect Decatur's victory over the Macedonian though. Decatur out maneuvered Carden in the "Old Wagon."

Indeed -- while there's many quotes about _US_'s "bad sailing qualities", I can't find any data which indicates it was any better or worse than average.

swarbs
12-24-2013, 15:29
There were certainly differences between sister-ships, but I don't think that those differences are necessary to add into the game. For example, a ship with a 0.1 knot advantage in speed will make a big difference if it's engaged in a 2 day stern-chase, as would a ship that can point 2 degrees closer to the wind. In the scale of an engagement where both sides start close to each other and have resolved to fight (and in a confined space of water) those things matter so little as to be insignificant (especially since most lines of battle limited their speed to the slowest member of the line).

If the game was going to model the whole age of sail, most of the engagements would be one side running from the other, or one side searching for the other in the entire expanse of the North Atlantic. But when two sides are resolved to fight, then Sails of Glory is perfectly adequate (more than that really great) when it comes to simulating that.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's not just the maneuver decks, but also the ship bases (see how the red area of the frigates is smaller than the ships of the line) that make differences. A ship could use the same deck as another, but have a different veer rating that would make a difference. There ARE differences between the decks for the two types of 74, and those seem big enough to leave room for more maneuver decks. And playing with the more advanced rules will also yield a bigger difference between each type of ship. The liners definitely feel clumsier than the frigates when you have to pre-plan a movement card.

Also, it should be noted that the picture of the 'sloop' on kickstarter was of a three-masted sloop of war - so their burden could be 2, but with fewer boxes to fill than the frigates. Just conjecture, but it would leave room for even smaller ships as well.

All in all, it seems too early in the game's life to be looking for limitations.

David Manley
12-24-2013, 15:45
I don't think there are "limits" at the lower end of the scale, but there are definitely limited opportunities to represent differences in ship types with the snall span in burden and gunnery factors to play with. Should be fairly straightforward to house rule though by opening up the span when playing solely with 5th rates and smaller. I did something similar with Warhammer Trafalgar and Form Line of Battle, both of which worked pretty well

fredmiracle
01-06-2014, 14:01
I was surprised to see that each ship model comes with its own deck included in the package. I guess that makes sense, but it wasn't clear to me that this would be the case until I got the package. So there's definitely room for each new class of ship to have a slightly different maneuver deck, if Ares decides to go that way with it...

Devsdoc
01-06-2014, 18:01
I don't think there are "limits" at the lower end of the scale, but there are definitely limited opportunities to represent differences in ship types with the snall span in burden and gunnery factors to play with. Should be fairly straightforward to house rule though by opening up the span when playing solely with 5th rates and smaller. I did something similar with Warhammer Trafalgar and Form Line of Battle, both of which worked pretty well

I saw your stuff on G.W. Trafalgar for house rule in M. Wargames mag. You said you would keep your powder dry on the 5th rate and smaller. If you have done work on this part of the rules could you share? I liked what you did in Form Line of Battle.
Be safe
Rory

Gunner
01-06-2014, 18:51
All I ask for (for now) is a French 80 and a British 64.

Nightmoss
01-06-2014, 18:54
All I ask for (for now) is a French 80 and a British 64.

Why those ships, Ed? Do you have a particular engagement you're working towards?

Coog
01-06-2014, 19:08
All I ask for (for now) is a French 80 and a British 64.

That's a negative Ghost Rider. We need US 38's and sloops.

Gunner
01-06-2014, 20:08
Why those ships, Ed? Do you have a particular engagement you're working towards?

One that probably will never be played using SGN rules. Trafalgar. But I'd like to try it using Flying Colors.
Why take forever building and painting a white metal fleet when Ares can do the work.
And the 80 can be used for other battles including the Glorious First of June as the Juste.
The 64 can be used as the HMS Lion that was part of a squadron that unsuccessfully tried to stop the French ships carrying Rochambeau's troops to America.
Just to name a couple.:drinks:

And yes Bobby, AFTER the 38's and sloops.:drinks:

Pseudotheist
01-06-2014, 20:21
1) A 74 is a 74 is a 74?

How different are the various ships from each other? In WoG, I'm sure each airplane has quite different characteristics. But in SoG, will each SoL or frigate be much alike to the next one? Especially given the granularity of the statistics? Presumably the major differentiating factor was crew, but that might be covered in the inexperienced crew rules, scenarios and the crew/captain deck.

What I'm getting at is, if each 74 looks mostly like the next (i.e. "this one has cream colored sails instead of white so you can tell it from her sister"), and each one has mostly the same stats and sailing characteristics, how compelling will it be as they offer more of them in the future--other than just as a matter of feeding unhealthy compulsions?
After a brief survey, it appears all ships of the same "class" share not only the same maneuver deck, but also the same burden, veer, and total damage capacity (both hull & crew). The other stats on most tend to be remarkably similar, with the biggest standout I've found being the Redoubtable having an extra point on the aft broadside for the first 7 slots over her sister ship Genereux, with all other stats being equal. That seems to be an outlier though.

The most interesting variation I've found is La Concorde, who trades away a point of fore & aft broadside on her 4th slot, and beam broadside on her 6th to her sister ship Corageuse in exchange for an extra point of musket firepower up front. It probably doesn't work out to a balanced trade-off in the end, but at least it's a trade.

Honestly, I would've liked to have seen a little more variety in the stats over all, but I would like to have seen it done such that one ship in each pack had the fleet standard stats.

Coog
01-06-2014, 20:22
I would like to see a British 64 for HMS Africa. I always wanted to see how close a battle it would have been between her and an American 44.

Gunner
01-06-2014, 20:27
I would like to see a British 64 for HMS Africa. I always wanted to see how close a battle it would have been between her and an American 44.

I know that there was a 64 in American waters. Was it the Africa?

Coog
01-06-2014, 20:35
I know that there was a 64 in American waters. Was it the Africa?

At the outbreak of the war, she was the only SOL in the Halifax squadron under the command of Captain John Bastard. I don't think she ever sailed alone. She was part of the chase of Constitution but lagged behind the British frigates. Although she was a larger ship, Captain Philip Broke of HMS Shannon commanded the squadron instead of Bastard.

Coog
01-06-2014, 20:56
This is how Africa and United States would have matched up:

Africa - Captain John Bastard

Weight: 1379 tons
Length: 159'
Beam: 44' 4"
Armament:
26 x 24 longs
26 x 18 longs
10 x 4 longs
2 x 9 longs

United States - Captain Stephen Decatur

Weight:1576 tons
Length: 175'
Beam: 43' 6"
Armament:
32 x 24 longs
24 x 42 carronades

Gunner
01-06-2014, 21:04
Looks like if the Constitution could have closed on Africa my money would be on the Constitution's carronades.
That would be a good scenario.

Coog
01-06-2014, 21:08
Looks like if the Constitution could have closed on Africa my money would be on the Constitution's carronades.
That would be a good scenario.

That was USS United States. United States, like President, had 42-pounder carronades. Constitution only carried 32-pounder carronades.

Diamondback
01-06-2014, 21:09
Actually, we need both... Tonnant/Bucentaure 80's figure big under both British and French flags in many battles, but we also need lots of sloops and brigs for small-ship actions.

Don't forget, we ARE getting a Swan-class sloop in Wave 2... I would've preferred a Cruizer myself as it fills out more OrBats, but it is what it is.

Gunner
01-06-2014, 21:13
Then I might have to reconsider my wager. But it would still be a great scenario.

Gunner
01-06-2014, 21:22
The bottom line is we need to help make SGN grow so Ares can make us all happy.:beer:

Coog
01-06-2014, 21:25
Don't forget, we ARE getting a Swan-class sloop in Wave 2... I would've preferred a Cruizer myself as it fills out more OrBats, but it is what it is.

I agree with you. The Swan class sloops, like most of the ships being produced, are more pre-Napoleonic and fit in better during the time period of the American Revolution than the early 1800's.

Coog
01-06-2014, 22:11
I am wondering if Ares will produce any models of the French Hebe class frigates as British Leda class frigates since they were copies of the Hebe. If not at least we will a good repaint option. You could have HMS Tenedos 38 and HMS Shannon 38 vs. USS Constitution 44 for a "it could have happened battle" and a test of the order for British 38's not to engage American 44's with only one 38 after the three losses in 1812.

David Manley
01-06-2014, 22:19
I am wondering if Ares will produce any models of the French Hebe class frigates as British Leda class frigates since they were copies of the Hebe. If not at least we will a good repaint option. You could have HMS Tenedos 38 and HMS Shannon 38 vs. USS Constitution 44 for a "it could have happened battle" and a test of the order for British 38's not to engage American 44's with only one 38 after the three losses in 1812.

Almost certainly. And it would be interesting to see whether a tie in with the Trincomalee in the UK would be worth considering. It would be nice to think that at some point copies of SGN would be on sale in the museum gift shop, same with the Constitution :happy:

Diamondback
01-06-2014, 22:20
Bobby, I've specifically pointed that out to Andrea both in direct email, and in my "potential reprints" spreadsheet I've built and sent him.

Hebe also doubles as the Hortense, Virginie and Pallas family of 40/44's... all of which are successive improvements on the same basic design just like the Bellona/Arrogant/Edgar/Elizabeth/etc. Slade Common 74's.

@David: Right, and also HMS Unicorn even though she was never brought into full commission or hoisted a sail.

Coog
01-06-2014, 22:37
Honestly, I have not been overly excited with the series 1 ships. However, the Hebe class model and all the possibilities for British 38's really peaks my interest.

David Manley
01-06-2014, 23:05
Honestly, I have not been overly excited with the series 1 ships. However, the Hebe class model and all the possibilities for British 38's really peaks my interest.

+1 :happy: The selection of the frigates in series 1 has caused more than a little head scratching in some quarters.

tmon
01-07-2014, 06:31
In my opinion the inclusion of frigates as part of the series 1 ships was logical. Ares wasn't creating a major fleet action game, they were trying to create a well rounded game that was centered on history. There were quite a few more frigate and sol battles in history then major fleet actions.

+1 :happy: The selection of the frigates in series 1 has caused more than a little head scratching in some quarters.

Coog
01-07-2014, 06:40
In my opinion the inclusion of frigates as part of the series 1 ships was logical. Ares wasn't creating a major fleet action game, they were trying to create a well rounded game that was centered on history. There were quite a few more frigate and sol battles in history then major fleet actions.

I believe what David is saying, as was my inference, is not that there were frigates in Series 1, but which frigates were selected.

Nightmoss
01-07-2014, 09:52
The bottom line is we need to help make SGN grow so Ares can make us all happy.:beer:

I can't imagine most folks who initially pick up this game as having the historical background knowledge that I see in this and other Anchorage threads. This could be a barrier to expanding the game if Ares and others can't educate the public to the wealth of differences that exist in this product and how that's going to translate into interesting gaming? Like Ed said, if this game doesn't sell to a broad base we're not going to get the additional ships for expansions.

David Manley
01-07-2014, 12:12
I believe what David is saying, as was my inference, is not that there were frigates in Series 1, but which frigates were selected.

Quite correct :)

David Manley
01-07-2014, 13:06
I can't imagine most folks who initially pick up this game as having the historical background knowledge that I see in this and other Anchorage threads. This could be a barrier to expanding the game if Ares and others can't educate the public to the wealth of differences that exist in this product and how that's going to translate into interesting gaming? Like Ed said, if this game doesn't sell to a broad base we're not going to get the additional ships for expansions.

I guess that could be an issue. What might be handy would be a page of links and book references on the Ares website and here (both factual and fictional, since I imagine a good number will have as much, if not more of an interest in the likes of Bolitho, Drinkwater and Ramage as in Cochrane, Decatur and Villeneuve) that those wishing to bone up on historical aspects could consult). There are some excellent introductory books on age of sail navies - as well as some thunderous and quite exceptional tomes.

Also a goodly supply of scenarios. Much as I dislike the idea of "spoonfeeding" players (dammit, I made my own by reading up on stuff rather than relying on a scenario book, why shouldn't everyone: :happy:) I can see the value in getting ab initio players involved and interested quickly.

csadn
01-07-2014, 17:06
+1 :happy: The selection of the frigates in series 1 has caused more than a little head scratching in some quarters.

Get the one-offs out of the way first; then move on to "mass-production" designs. :)

Diamondback
01-07-2014, 17:37
Actually, when you look at it's "stretch" mileage the Concorde is a fair choice... its designer's brother ALSO had a class of 32's built at the same time in the same yard, and it's a safe bet that the Chevillards probably compared notes over the dinner table. Plus it's fairly close to the 1777 Magicienne class, which is a HUGE pool under both French and British flags.

The 1773 Amazon... while it doesn't have the "stretch" of the Concorde or Hebe, it's still a pretty respectable-size class in itself. My best guess... they were probably looking for a couple ships with overall similar stats that would balance each other yet still have some distinguishing stat differences.

My personal hope is that Wave 3 will see a Hebe re-run as the Leda class and a French sloop, along with either two Second Rates or a British 90-98 and a Tonnant/Bucentaure 80. (Technically, 80's are Third Rate, but the French didn't have much in the 90-98 range, preferring instead to jump straight from 80's to 100-pluses like the Oceans.)

Andy Blozinski
01-07-2014, 18:09
I wouldn't mind some 64s. Heavier frigates are going to be nice.

The Mad Hatter
01-07-2014, 18:38
While I know the number is very small, I'd still love to see some of the British super frigates make an appearance. The razee'd 64's would be great, given my choice I'd love to see the Indefatigable make an appearance - along with the great Sir Edward Pellew!

As a side note, for anyone heavily interested in the various classes of frigates, their development, and performance I HIGHLY recommend Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars by Robert Gardiner. The book is a little pricey, but by far one of the best books in my library!

Bellerophon
01-07-2014, 21:38
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see some Xebecs eventually as well.

David Manley
01-08-2014, 07:28
As a side note, for anyone heavily interested in the various classes of frigates, their development, and performance I HIGHLY recommend Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars by Robert Gardiner. The book is a little pricey, but by far one of the best books in my library!

I recall it was reprinted as a paperback a few years back, and was available for fairly reasonable prices. and I agree, well worth tracking down and getting a copy if you can find one sensibly priced.

The Royal Hajj
01-08-2014, 08:09
Thanks for the heads up on the book guys, but at about $80 used, I'll have to pass for a while.

David Manley
01-08-2014, 08:12
I often pop into second hand and antiquarian bookshops with a naval theme. I'll keep an eye out for any cheap copies.

DeRuyter
01-08-2014, 08:35
I guess that could be an issue. What might be handy would be a page of links and book references on the Ares website and here (both factual and fictional, since I imagine a good number will have as much, if not more of an interest in the likes of Bolitho, Drinkwater and Ramage as in Cochrane, Decatur and Villeneuve) that those wishing to bone up on historical aspects could consult). There are some excellent introductory books on age of sail navies - as well as some thunderous and quite exceptional tomes.


Similar to what Ares does for WOG; a brief write up of the history of each ship model or at least the ship class. Some ships would lend themselves to this, the obvious examples being Victory and Constitution.

Diamondback
01-19-2014, 17:18
Yeah, that $80 price holds me back on most of the better references... and, it sounds like, most major libraries too. When I asked about getting one of Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail volumes on interlibrary loan, I was told the two nearest copies were Calgary and Hell A, and neither of them loan it out.

The Mad Hatter
01-19-2014, 18:12
Winfield's "British Warships" are one of those references worth the money if you can swing it. If you can snag a cheap copy of any volume, it's well worth it. The tough one to find reasonably is the 1793-1817 one which is probably the one most people here want. The 1714-1792 probably has a lot of ships that took part in the Napoleonic Wars as well, but its still in the $50-75 range. It's probably the next book I'll add to my library as I have the 1603-1714 and 1793-1817 books.

Diamondback
01-19-2014, 18:42
Ryan, in that case would you mind taking a look at an Excel spreadsheet and trying to fill in some blanks from design commentary in 1793-1815? I know some ship designs were evolutions or variations of older designs, and I'm trying to sort those out from the "clean sheet of paper" designs, and from there what evolved from what. For example, I know Rule up-scaled and enlarged an older design to create HMS Acasta, but I don't know what the "parent design" was, while I know that Sir Thomas Slade's Ardent 64's were basically a "Honey, I Shrunk HMS Bellona".

Idea being, the more ships I can find that can be tolerably grouped into one sculpt, the faster we can rack up complete scenarios ready-to-play from history, and possibly the faster Andrea can get new units into play.

The Mad Hatter
01-19-2014, 19:10
Sure, happy to help! If you want to email me the spreadsheet, just PM me and we can sort it out. Let me know any specific questions you're looking to answer, I'll check and see what I can find.

Nightmoss
02-01-2014, 09:38
I just read David's latest blog entry concerning SoG. It was linked off The Miniatures Page. It's most definitely worth checking out (and I thought this was a good place to link it, rather than starting a new thread):

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=334588

http://dtbsam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/sails-of-glory-musings.html

Cheers!

p.s. Apologies David if I jumped the gun on your story?

7eat51
02-01-2014, 09:59
I just read David's latest blog entry concerning SoG.

An interesting and informative review. I think he summarized many of the discussions happening here.

For what it is worth, David, I hope people can see past the critique and realize you enjoy/support the game. Too often, readers read with an all-or-nothing mentality; the moment a criticism is raised, the nuanced position of the writer goes right out of the window.

I really like SoG a lot. I don't expect from it simulation-level mechanics. I don't want simulation-level mechanics. I want a game to play with Sue and friends, non-wargame folks. That said, I will incorporate many house rules, but will probably stick to the RaW when running con events, well, maybe I will. :wink:

Andy Blozinski
02-01-2014, 10:18
I have yet to try the crew management rules, but they seem like the best job yet of the handful of rules I've looked at. Heart of Oak has a special rule for a 'Heave To' maneuver. I've pulled it off twice using the cards in SoG.
The only thing I've missed so far is the lack of left and right side hull damage. I'm kind of wondering if having separate L/R damage is realistic, but it really did add fun nuance to the game.

fredmiracle
02-01-2014, 12:09
I realize the A&A naval minis were a pretty different beast, but one of the great things about that game, and I think something that helped it to be more popular than many people expected, was that the designer listened to feedback in an engaged and interactive way in the first year or so (but without allowing himself to be buffeted by every loud opinion). He then issued a set of rules fixes which were elegant in their simplicity, and didn't invalidate any of the game components, but changed and improved the game play significantly. Maybe that model would be applicable here. Sure we can all "roll our own" but I think there's a lot of value to a common, officially sanctioned baseline.

David Manley
02-02-2014, 06:00
Sure we can all "roll our own" but I think there's a lot of value to a common, officially sanctioned baseline.

There is, but you know wargamers, they LOVE to change things :)

It will be interesting to see what organisers of tournaments decide to do if and when SGN tournament play catches on. Basic? Standard? Advanced? Options or not? There is a very wide range of approaches here.

Andy Blozinski
02-02-2014, 07:00
There is, but you know wargamers, they LOVE to change things :)

It will be interesting to see what organisers of tournaments decide to do if and when SGN tournament play catches on. Basic? Standard? Advanced? Options or not? There is a very wide range of approaches here.
Since multiple ships will likely be involved, my guess is some modified form of Standard.

David Manley
02-02-2014, 09:04
For what it is worth, David, I hope people can see past the critique and realize you enjoy/support the game. Too often, readers read with an all-or-nothing mentality; the moment a criticism is raised, the nuanced position of the writer goes right out of the window.

Indeed, and its one of those things that really puts me off some game systems. I don't know what it is, but there are a few that seem to attract the "criticize and die" fraternity; any comment expressed that isn't "this system is BRILLIANT/PERFECT/AWESOME/etc." is interpreted as "I hate it, and that gives you permission to burn me alive". I prefer to steer clear of those and find more rational gaming communities with which to enjoy my free time.

Nightmoss
02-02-2014, 11:32
Indeed, and its one of those things that really puts me off some game systems. I don't know what it is, but there are a few that seem to attract the "criticize and die" fraternity; any comment expressed that isn't "this system is BRILLIANT/PERFECT/AWESOME/etc." is interpreted as "I hate it, and that gives you permission to burn me alive". I prefer to steer clear of those and find more rational gaming communities with which to enjoy my free time.

Indeed, there are more than a few folks slamming Sails of Glory both prior to and after your comments on The Miniatures Page. Unfortunate.

David Manley
02-02-2014, 11:37
I'm not surprised, its something new and its ruffled feathers. Happens quite a bit in my experience. But I think the reaction from the wargaming public has been generally very good. And interesting to see that the usual doom and gloom experts on some of the specialist naval wargaming fora (who don't generally frequent places like this or TMP) haven't lit off. Quite a contrast to the reception that Warhammer Trafalgar received!

Nightmoss
02-02-2014, 14:52
I'm not surprised, its something new and its ruffled feathers. Happens quite a bit in my experience. But I think the reaction from the wargaming public has been generally very good. And interesting to see that the usual doom and gloom experts on some of the specialist naval wargaming fora (who don't generally frequent places like this or TMP) haven't lit off. Quite a contrast to the reception that Warhammer Trafalgar received!

I agree that the response has been surprisingly positive, especially here in the States, where AoS games have never been at the top of wargamers wants list. The supportive voices on TMP are quite firmly drowning out the nay-sayer's.

If the starter set really has sold out of the warehouse and Ares announced a Spring reprint that speaks volumes as well. It's very encouraging!

fredmiracle
02-02-2014, 21:04
There is, but you know wargamers, they LOVE to change things :)


Of course that will always happen, and why not? :beer:


I think there's a big difference between

A) "the official rules are fun and I'm happy to play them, but when I/my group play we tweak X, Y, Z"

and

B) "the official rules have serious enough problems that I really prefer not to play them without tweaking X, Y and Z"


I think most of your concerns fall more toward the (A) position, but if there are any that consistently seem to be moving people more toward the (B) position then that would be when an official intervention might add value. I'm not clear yet whether there are any glaring (B) issues, but some things like the rate of damage accrual, the question marks about two-card-ahead movement and the "fiddliness" of the counters and "draw an E chit and see what's on it" seem like they are pretty basic and have been popping up a lot in the early going.

Again, all of these are trivial to house-rule, but if there's a "semi-official/official" consensus on how to handle them it's easier to maintain the cohesion of the community, from my limited experience. There's also potentially a lot less value-add from community-created rules-helper cards and solitaire rules and other game extensions if the situation is such that everyone has felt compelled to hand-roll their own version of the game...

Пилот
02-03-2014, 02:14
If official rules have that big problem (as per "B") then I prefere not to use them. Serious system error sometimes means complete redesigning, wich is not the case if only math/stats are the problem, or you can add/distract some minor rule.

In both cases forums as this one are good idea, as you exchange experiances faster, and with lot more people that you usualy would do. Playing in closed group could block "line of sight".

DeRuyter
02-03-2014, 09:18
I'm not surprised, its something new and its ruffled feathers. Happens quite a bit in my experience. But I think the reaction from the wargaming public has been generally very good. And interesting to see that the usual doom and gloom experts on some of the specialist naval wargaming fora (who don't generally frequent places like this or TMP) haven't lit off. Quite a contrast to the reception that Warhammer Trafalgar received!

Yes but TMP has plenty of people who fancy themselves experts at everything, especially slagging someone else's positive comments! No lack of flame wars on certain topics there. Having said that I find it full of valuable news and information - like your review! Thanks!

Eric

Diamondback
02-03-2014, 14:19
Frankly, I get the impression that some at TMP, if they didn't have anything to kvetch about, would complain about not HAVING anything to grouse about...

csadn
02-03-2014, 17:26
Frankly, I get the impression that some at TMP, if they didn't have anything to kvetch about, would complain about not HAVING anything to grouse about...

And that's why long-service gamers are called "grognards" (French: "Grumblers"). :)

Пилот
02-04-2014, 04:33
Thus implying they are Old Guard :swordright:

csadn
02-04-2014, 16:42
Thus implying they are Old Guard :swordright:

Exactly. >:)

Berthier
02-04-2014, 17:12
Dont you start having a go at Grognards.....the term comes from the French Old Guard, known for their grumbling (despite being the best fed, best equipped, best housed of any unit in La Grande Armee). They are "off limits" to criticism thank you, know your place sirs!! :wink::swordright::wink:

Berthier
02-04-2014, 17:23
There is this book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Frigates-Warships-Napoleonic-1793-1815/dp/0850524326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391559711&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Frigates%3A+The+Account+of+the+Lighter+Warships+of+the+Napoleonic+Wars%2C+1793-1815+-+an+account+of+the+lighter+warships+of+the+Napoleonic+Wars%2C+1793-1815

which is quite inexpensive but hardly definitive.

Gunner
02-04-2014, 17:24
They are "off limits" to criticism thank you, know your place sirs!! :wink::swordright::wink:

If it wasn't for Waterloo, I would have believed that.

Berthier
02-04-2014, 17:35
Ah Ed, the Old Guard didnt attack the ridges at Waterloo that was the Middle Guard (Chasseurs) and sundry others. The two battalions of the Old Guard, the true grognards, fought a rear guard retreating action in square for most of the night and were not broken despite taking huge casualties (around 40%). They maintained cohesion throughout, pursuing cavalry turning away from them to find easier pickings.

For a very interesting read see
http://www.amazon.com/Waterloo-French-Perspective-Andrew-Field-ebook/dp/B00B1GSKBS/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391560167&sr=1-4&keywords=the+french+perspective

taken from first hand accounts on the French side of the battle and the first account In English (I think) to do this. THe vast majority of previous writings on Waterloo have been based on purely English accounts, excluding the records of the Prussian, Dutch and Belgian as well as the French troops. Thus nearly all descriptions of the battle are written from a perspective of maybe 15-20% of the soldiers who were on the field! There have been some wonderful releases recently on contributions from the other contigents that help to redress the imbalance this has produced as to what actually happened, where it happened and who was involved on that day.

Gunner
02-04-2014, 17:35
There is this book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Frigates-Warships-Napoleonic-1793-1815/dp/0850524326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391559711&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Frigates%3A+The+Account+of+the+Lighter+Warships+of+the+Napoleonic+Wars%2C+1793-1815+-+an+account+of+the+lighter+warships+of+the+Napoleonic+Wars%2C+1793-1815

which is quite inexpensive but hardly definitive.

I thought this was a well written account of Frigates of the Napoleonic era despite being somewhat biased towards the British and a few errors.

Gunner
02-04-2014, 17:44
Ah Ed, the Old Guard didnt attack the ridges at Waterloo that was the Middle Guard (Chasseurs) and sundry others. The two battalions of the Old Guard, the true grognards, fought a rear guard retreating action in square for most of the night and were not broken despite taking huge casualties (around 40%). They maintained cohesion throughout, pursuing cavalry turning away from them to find easier pickings.

For a very interesting read see
http://www.amazon.com/Waterloo-French-Perspective-Andrew-Field-ebook/dp/B00B1GSKBS/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391560167&sr=1-4&keywords=the+french+perspective

taken from first hand accounts on the French side of the battle and the first account In English (I think) to do this. THe vast majority of previous writings on Waterloo have been based on purely English accounts, excluding the records of the Prussian, Dutch and Belgian as well as the French troops. Thus nearly all descriptions of the battle are written from a perspective of maybe 15-20% of the soldiers who were on the field! There have been some wonderful releases recently on contributions from the other contigents that help to redress the imbalance this has produced as to what actually happened, where it happened and who was involved on that day.

I stand corrected, but I did see somewhere that it was five battalions of the Middle Guard.

Berthier
02-04-2014, 18:05
Grenadier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier) Division

Comte Louis Friant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Friant). Deputy: General Roguet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_Roguet&action=edit&redlink=1).
4055 (138 officers, 3917 men)
1396 (61 officers, 1335 men), thus 34%



1er and 2e Bataillons, 1er Régiment de Grenadiers (Old Guard)
Général de Brigade Baron Petit
1280 (41 officers, 1239 men)
157 (12 officers, 145 men)



1er and 2e Bataillons, 2e Régiment de Grenadiers (Old Guard)
Général de Brigade Baron Christiani
1091 (36 officers, 1055 men)
330 (16 officers, 330 men)



1er and 2e Bataillons, 3e Régiment de Grenadiers (Middle Guard)
Général de Brigade Baron Poret de Morvan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-Jean-Baptiste_Poret_de_Morvan)
1164 (34 officers, 1130 men)
673 (16 officers, 657 men)



1er Bataillonm, 4e Régiment de Grenadiers (Middle Guard)
Général de Brigade Harlet
520 (27 officers, 493 men)




Chasseur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasseur) Division
Général de Division Morand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Antoine_Morand). Deputy: General Michel (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_%C3%89tienne_Michel&action=edit&redlink=1).
4603 (132 officers, 4471 men)
1775 (58 officers, 1717 men), thus 39%



1er and 2e Bataillons, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs (Old Guard)
Général de Brigade Comte Cambronne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Cambronne)
1307 (36 officers, 1271 men)
330 (7 officers, 323 men)



1er and 2e Bataillons, 2e Régiment de Chasseurs (Old Guard)
Général de Brigade Baron Pelet-Clozeau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Germain_Pelet-Clozeau)
1163 (32 officers, 1131 men)
282 (11 officers, 271 men)



1er and 2e Bataillons, 3e Régiment de Chasseurs (Middle Guard)
Colonel Mallet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Antoine_Anselme_Malet)
1062 (34 officers, 1028 men)
25 officers, 1123 men (3rd and 4th combined)



1er and 2e Bataillons, 4e Régiment de Chasseurs (Middle Guard)
Général de Brigade Henrion
1071 (30 officers, 1041 men)
15 officers, 1123 men (3rd and 4th combined)




Correction Ed, I referred to the 2 Bn of the Old Grenadier Guard, these were regiments (duh) and there were also Chasseurs of the Old Guard but the true old guard were considered the Grenadiers 1st and 2nd regs. One battelion had fought at Plancenoit thowing out the Prussians the other three remaining battalions formed the rear guard, there is some confusion on the exact number see below:

Marshal M. Ney Stated that: “… I saw four regiments of the middle guard, conducted by the Emperor, arriving. With these troops, he wished to renew the attack, and penetrate the centre of the enemy. He ordered me to lead them on; generals, officers and soldiers all displayed the greatest intrepidity; but this body of troops was too weak to resist, for a long time, the forces opposed to it by the enemy, and it was soon necessary to renounce the hope which this attack had, for a few moments, inspired.”

Three Old Guard battalions did move forward and formed the second line attack, though they remained in reserve and did not directly attack the Anglo-allied line. Marching through an acclaimed of flask(?) and skirmisher fire, the 3,000 or so Middle Guardsmen advanced towards the west of La Haye Sainte, and in so doing, separated into three distinct attack forces. First, consisting of two battalions of Grenadiers, defeated Wellington’s first line of British, Brunswick and Nassau troops and marched on. Second is the Chasse’s relatively fresh Dutch division was sent against them and its artillery fired into the victorious Grenadiers’ border. This still could not stop the Guard’s advance, so Chassé ordered his first brigade as the third distinct attack forces to charge the outnumbered French army, who faltered and broke.

The surviving Imperial Guard rallied for the last stand on their three reserve battalions, however some sources say the battlions were four, just south of La Haye Sainte. (ie the 1st Grenadier bns)

DeRuyter
02-05-2014, 11:43
Frankly, I get the impression that some at TMP, if they didn't have anything to kvetch about, would complain about not HAVING anything to grouse about...

So true! :clap:

Nightmoss
02-05-2014, 13:22
Frankly, I get the impression that some at TMP, if they didn't have anything to kvetch about, would complain about not HAVING anything to grouse about...

I think I'm done with TMP outside of looking at paints and historical links. Too much discord in too many threads.

DeRuyter
02-05-2014, 13:54
Ah Ed, the Old Guard didnt attack the ridges at Waterloo that was the Middle Guard (Chasseurs) and sundry others. The two battalions of the Old Guard, the true grognards, fought a rear guard retreating action in square for most of the night and were not broken despite taking huge casualties (around 40%). They maintained cohesion throughout, pursuing cavalry turning away from them to find easier pickings.


"Merde" :swordright::cannon:


(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)

Gunner
02-05-2014, 14:48
"Merde" :swordright::cannon:


(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)

Nice quote and well placed icons:beer:

Berthier
02-05-2014, 15:08
"Merde" :swordright::cannon:


(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)

Despite the debate it's probably what I would have said in the same situation!

Devsdoc
02-05-2014, 16:51
I think I'm done with TMP outside of looking at paints and historical links. Too much discord in too many threads.

Jim,
does this not happen here too? This site is based on one game. I thought we all could say as we see. I have learnt a lot from both sites. I will not buy into this game, but still have I hope friends here. I too do not like all I hear on TMP and on this site to. I like to keep an open mind, and learn a lot. I have learnt what to do and not do, but I learn.
Be safe
Rory

Nightmoss
02-05-2014, 21:18
Jim,
does this not happen here too? This site is based on one game. I thought we all could say as we see. I have learnt a lot from both sites. I will not buy into this game, but still have I hope friends here. I too do not like all I hear on TMP and on this site to. I like to keep an open mind, and learn a lot. I have learnt what to do and not do, but I learn.
Be safe
Rory

Hi Rory,
There will always be strong opinions and discussion on the Internet. Even so I think there may be more of an inclination to be open minded here than over on TMP, but that's just my take on some of the responses I've seen to SoG threads that have popped up since mid January.
I miss your posts and photos here knowing that the Anchorage isn't just for Sails of Glory. Your thread on rigging a ship would be really helpful to a lot of the new members who are looking to upgrade their SoG vessels, but the photos are still ruined from the hacker.
I've learned a great deal from you and others since I signed on in March 2013 and I want to learn more about the Age of Sail and Sails of Glory. I'll still view TMP as well, but with a little less vigor.
Take care, friend!
Jim

Diamondback
02-05-2014, 23:08
I shoulda probably been clearer... it's a rare community indeed that doesn't have one or two like that. :)

DeRuyter
02-06-2014, 13:06
Hi Rory,
There will always be strong opinions and discussion on the Internet. Even so I think there may be more of an inclination to be open minded here than over on TMP, but that's just my take on some of the responses I've seen to SoG threads that have popped up since mid January.
I miss your posts and photos here knowing that the Anchorage isn't just for Sails of Glory. Your thread on rigging a ship would be really helpful to a lot of the new members who are looking to upgrade their SoG vessels, but the photos are still ruined from the hacker.
I've learned a great deal from you and others since I signed on in March 2013 and I want to learn more about the Age of Sail and Sails of Glory. I'll still view TMP as well, but with a little less vigor.
Take care, friend!
Jim

I would agree that some of the posts on TMP are heavy handed to say the least, in contrast to David's blog commentary which is very constructive. Some of the posters are turning up their noses at SoG after a brief review, and one was very miffed because the game was marketed as "realistic" ship combat in the age of sail and it isn't. Looking at the starter set box I don't think the language is overreaching in that regard.

Devsdoc
02-06-2014, 13:53
Hi Rory,
There will always be strong opinions and discussion on the Internet. Even so I think there may be more of an inclination to be open minded here than over on TMP, but that's just my take on some of the responses I've seen to SoG threads that have popped up since mid January.
I miss your posts and photos here knowing that the Anchorage isn't just for Sails of Glory. Your thread on rigging a ship would be really helpful to a lot of the new members who are looking to upgrade their SoG vessels, but the photos are still ruined from the hacker.
I've learned a great deal from you and others since I signed on in March 2013 and I want to learn more about the Age of Sail and Sails of Glory. I'll still view TMP as well, but with a little less vigor.
Take care, friend!
Jim

Jim,
We have not met, but I think of you as a friend. It is sad about the photos. I read you info on re-posting the photos and got lost after the 2nd line. My I.T. skills are so poor. I learnt a lot on this site. About I.T. stuff, painting, rigging ships and people. This was the frist time I joined and got into a site like this. The only two sites I look at and use are this and TMP.
I have always said SOG was not for me as a game system. This site is really for SOG system only. I know you and lots of shipmates here have worked hard on making the ships look better. But to me they are just the wrong scale and toy like. I'm sorry, but I'm tied of being shot down over my thoughts on is site. I have tried to be opened minded.
TMP is not based on one system, so they will go for all different systems (good and bad). I keep an open mind to all rules and systems. The big plus to SOG is the open the box and play. The big plus to other systems is you can inter-change from one rule system to another rule system with what you have. Until Ares change its ideas on rules and ships only. Which I do not think it will. the only way alas it will happen is piracy. Not for me
Be safe
Rory

7eat51
02-06-2014, 21:12
Rory, I know your presence will be more limited than at first. I, for one, will always be on the lookout, and when I see you avatar on the horizon, the day will be a bit brighter. :salute:

Devsdoc
02-07-2014, 11:04
Rory, I know your presence will be more limited than at first. I, for one, will always be on the lookout, and when I see you avatar on the horizon, the day will be a bit brighter. :salute:

Thank you Eric,
Sorry if I sounded down. I'm not. I just think Davids blog about SOG was fair. Over half the feed-back about the blog and SOG on TMP was positive. So why a number of ship-mates here had to start name calling and putting down the TMP thread is beyond me! Apart from me all the ship-mates on this site are into SOG, that is O.K. with me. But it is not the one and only way to go in SOL wargaming. I will say no more about this, as I have said it many times before on many threads on Anchorage. I will not go away as I have to many friends on this site. I wish the "How to" was not bu##ered up. But I can not fix it. It was the only input I could make to this site that would help members with there ships, SOG or other makes.
By the way what has happen to yours and Sue's ships?
Be safe
Rory

David Manley
02-07-2014, 11:18
So why a number of ship-mates here had to start name calling and putting down the TMP thread is beyond me!

Indeed, bo***ks to that, TMP is a fun place to be. And this place has its share of "characters" too, make no mistake about it :happy:

(me included, I'm sure!)

Volunteer
02-07-2014, 13:16
Rory's sentiments are mine as well. I have noticed more closed minds on this site than the TMP Napoleonic Naval Discussion board I frequent. I thought David's SOG review on the TPM thread fair and balanced. Of the 25 responses to the thread (not including David's) only 8 were negative and 3 of those were only half negative with positive things to say as well. So lets call it 6.5 negative, that's about 25%. That's not very much. Of course even one negative comment can be too much to a closed mind. You folks need to lighten up. AOS gaming is a broad hobby and SOG is just one of the many ways it can be enjoyed. Lots of folks don't like Trafalgar rules either, or KMH (my favorite), or David's Form Line of Battle rules. So what? The whole point of a hobby is to do what you love. Who cares if someone doesn't like the rules you like. It doesn't stop you from enjoying them does it? Is your like for your favorite rules so fragile that you can't bear any criticism of them? Hmmm...why not take the criticism and turn it into something constructive like David's house rules suggestions. Make the rules work for you, or find another rule set, simple. But to ostracize an entire site like TMP just because a few people don't like the rules you have invested in, well I won't say it.:Arrrr::sad:

Пилот
02-08-2014, 14:28
Who likes it, will play it, Who dosn't, will not.

Berthier
02-08-2014, 18:00
Find me any set of wargame rules that more than 90% of people think are fantastic and I'd be amazed and probably buy them instantly!

Everyone has their own perspective on conflict resolution, differences in design for effect and design for realism, (playability vs realism), how detailed the rules need to be, the scale of the approach (eg single ship vs squadron vs fleet), where the emphasis should lie (eg was British gunnery or sailing experience the more important factor in their dominance?), the relative benefit of this ship over that design, of this weapon system over that one, etc ad infinitum. None of these approaches are intrinisically wrong they just represent people's preferences, biases and sometimes prejudices. I've seen scathing assessments of games I really like and religious zeal in praise of games I just don't get (eg ASL), the diversity is what makes the world interesting and sometimes a contrary opinion can sound a note of insight that you haven't seen yourself.

Пилот
02-08-2014, 18:52
I'm looking for perfect set of Napoleonic rules for the last 25 years...

Berthier
02-08-2014, 18:55
I'm looking for perfect set of Napoleonic rules for the last 25 years...

Well they'd have to be ones where the French always win to start with :takecover::wink:

Пилот
02-08-2014, 19:00
Even that happened from time to time :shock: :happy:

But, leading Austrians is real challenge!

David Manley
02-09-2014, 00:28
Well they'd have to be ones where the French always win to start with :takecover::wink:

Unless fighting the British, of course :happy:

Nightmoss
02-09-2014, 09:04
From what I've read here and my understanding of the rules one of the major 'limits' of SoG is going to be 'campaign' battles involving large number of ships.

Is Ares (or anyone) working on 'fleet' rules or some strategic level of play that can lead into the more tactical ship to ship battles you expect to play out of the starter set?

David Manley
02-09-2014, 09:21
There's really two different issues here, large battles and campaigns.

The rules aren't suited to playing large battles. If you really want to play Trafalgar then realistically you should be looking at another set. Of course someone will try (and I'm already working on doing the Nile at the Naval Wargames Show in June, but that'll be a special event; if I was looking at refighting that or larger battles SGN would not be my rules set of choice). A was discussed here a while back it is possible to split large battles up into discrete "chunks", much as land wargamers do for large battles such as Waterloo and Gettysburg. It really is a matter of common sense, thinking how big a battle you want to fight on your tabletop and chunking your battle of choice - or create 2-3 hypothetical actions, play them separately and link the results for a non-historical action.

Campaigns are a different matter, and are (IMHO) much more fun. There are a number of decent board games that can be used as campaign systems for tactical tabletop battle generation. There are also specific campaign systems out there (such as Greg Novak's "To Glory We Steer), and I wrote one for FLoB about 15 years ago that works fine for SGN (maybe a little tweaking needed for things like the repair and recruiting rules, but I want to see how the Wave 2 and later ships pan out before I do the mods). So if that was the thrust of the question then yes.

Пилот
02-09-2014, 11:27
Re-creating historical battles (1), ones which really happened, calls for special one-only set of rules, made just for that ocassion. But, others games, although never historically happened, cover "easily might of happen" category (2) - two Brittish vs. two French figates. Others belong to what-if scenarios (3) - let's say massive Brittish vs Russia battle at Crimea in 1810 . And you have "historical fantasy" scenarios (4) as Azteks vs. Spain.

I have played so far 1, 2, and 3 (land battles only) and must say, 2 and 3 are easiest to make. I believe same goes for naval battles.

Blastwall
02-09-2014, 11:28
Hi,
Each ship does has it's own manoeuvre deck but as far as I can tell so far, they are identical for each type of ship class for each side. So, at the moment there seem to be A, B, C & D decks and all the SOL and Frigates I have so far all have one of these decks. I'm not sure if there will be more. The problem with trying to define the individual sailing characteristics of an individual ship would require unique cards for each ship type, probably out of the scope of the game. The manoeuvre cards could have been, (or could be in the future?) marked with different levels of manoeuvre depending the ability of crew (requiring a separate skill rating for each ship) which would go along way to sorting out such subtle differences. There is an optional rule for poorly trained crew which helps sort out differences in ability to carry out actions quickly and rate of firing which works pretty well. I haven't used the Captain cards yet. In terms of damage, it can be pretty brutal if you get lucky - particularly the double shot ammunition option which requires you to fire at point blank. The last game I played HMS Defence utterly destroyed the Courage in two rounds of such broadside - but it took me the best part of two hours to manoeuvre into a position where I could deliver them! There is nothing to reflect the effects of tide and current on ship's sailing but then how far can you go on what is meant to be a game? I always wanted to try age of sail wargaming but was also fearful of building those dam small ships and painting them, and the potential for super complex rules. This game is great fun as is, but maybe with the collective feed back here some future tweaks may make it even better.

David Manley
02-09-2014, 11:39
Hi,
Each ship does has it's own manoeuvre deck but as far as I can tell so far, they are identical for each type of ship class for each side. So, at the moment there seem to be A, B, C & D decks and all the SOL and Frigates I have so far all have one of these decks. I'm not sure if there will be more. The problem with trying to define the individual sailing characteristics of an individual ship would require unique cards for each ship type, probably out of the scope of the game. The manoeuvre cards could have been, (or could be in the future?) marked with different levels of manoeuvre depending the ability of crew (requiring a separate skill rating for each ship) which would go along way to sorting out such subtle differences. There is an optional rule for poorly trained crew which helps sort out differences in ability to carry out actions quickly and rate of firing which works pretty well. I haven't used the Captain cards yet. In terms of damage, it can be pretty brutal if you get lucky - particularly the double shot ammunition option which requires you to fire at point blank. The last game I played HMS Defence utterly destroyed the Courage in two rounds of such broadside - but it took me the best part of two hours to manoeuvre into a position where I could deliver them! There is nothing to reflect the effects of tide and current on ship's sailing but then how far can you go on what is meant to be a game? I always wanted to try age of sail wargaming but was also fearful of building those dam small ships and painting them, and the potential for super complex rules. This game is great fun as is, but maybe with the collective feed back here some future tweaks may make it even better.

Ok, first off there will be additional decks. Expect most, if not all the Wave 2 and the "specials" to have their own. And almost certainly the merchies too. Individual qualities can be represented by removing some of the higher/lower numbered cards and restricting the degree of veer to represent unhandy ships, and by selecting what I expect will be slower or faster decks within each broad ship group.

Tides and currents only really come into effect in coastal scenarios (obviously they d have an effect in the deeper ocean areas but in that environment they affect the sea mass as a whole and so you'd simply be shifting the whole table, so there's no point). In coastal scenarios they can be represented by invoking offset movement each turn. For example, playing in an estuarine river mouth scenario you could just move all ships downstream an inch or whatever you thought was reasonable. Same with currents in various parts of the table.

Nightmoss
02-09-2014, 12:54
There's really two different issues here, large battles and campaigns.

The rules aren't suited to playing large battles. If you really want to play Trafalgar then realistically you should be looking at another set. Of course someone will try (and I'm already working on doing the Nile at the Naval Wargames Show in June, but that'll be a special event; if I was looking at refighting that or larger battles SGN would not be my rules set of choice). A was discussed here a while back it is possible to split large battles up into discrete "chunks", much as land wargamers do for large battles such as Waterloo and Gettysburg. It really is a matter of common sense, thinking how big a battle you want to fight on your tabletop and chunking your battle of choice - or create 2-3 hypothetical actions, play them separately and link the results for a non-historical action.

Campaigns are a different matter, and are (IMHO) much more fun. There are a number of decent board games that can be used as campaign systems for tactical tabletop battle generation. There are also specific campaign systems out there (such as Greg Novak's "To Glory We Steer), and I wrote one for FLoB about 15 years ago that works fine for SGN (maybe a little tweaking needed for things like the repair and recruiting rules, but I want to see how the Wave 2 and later ships pan out before I do the mods). So if that was the thrust of the question then yes.

Campaigns was the major focus of my question and you pretty much answered it in your second paragraph.

I do recall the discussion of breaking down large battles into smaller limited ship actions and then linking them somehow into a "non-historical" action. I think something like this might be fun and workable for large gaming conventions held over several days? At the same time I still want to see how your Battle of the Nile unfolds or anyone else's attempts at battles involving a large number of SGN ships. Thanks for the reply!

Gunner
02-10-2014, 06:21
Rules notwithstanding, I think the biggest reason for SGN's popularity is the ready made and painted out of the box ships, and over time we will see them used with all miniature Napoleonic naval rules. Not to mention the new naval wargammers who don't like building and painting ships it is drawing.

Devsdoc
02-10-2014, 10:32
Rules notwithstanding, I think the biggest reason for SGN's popularity is the ready made and painted out of the box ships, and over time we will see them used with all miniature Napoleonic naval rules. Not to mention the new naval wargammers who don't like building and painting ships it is drawing.

I hope you are right. If the scale had been a normal scale 1-1200, 1-2400 etc. and the plug was in the base, with the hole in the ship. It would have been a shoe-in for Ares. They have made life difficult for us and themselves. I think they would have done better (sales) for their game and models if they had thought about both of the above. I do not think I am alone in thinking this. I'm not hitting out at Ares or SOG system. I just think they should have got better advice, or listen to advice given to them. They have lost 2 markets. The old sea dogs buying the game itself, or players adding made up ships to fleets they have already. I hope I'm wrong, but look off this site and see.
Be safe
Rory :takecover:

Gunner
02-10-2014, 11:00
You are definitely correct that they should have had the hole in the ship and not the base.:beer:

fredmiracle
02-10-2014, 11:11
I hope you are right. If the scale had been a normal scale 1-1200, 1-2400 etc. and the plug was in the base, with the hole in the ship. It would have been a shoe-in for Ares. They have made life difficult for us and themselves. I think they would have done better (sales) for their game and models if they had thought about both of the above. I do not think I am alone in thinking this. I'm not hitting out at Ares or SOG system. I just think they should have got better advice, or listen to advice given to them. They have lost 2 markets. The old sea dogs buying the game itself, or players adding made up ships to fleets they have already. I hope I'm wrong, but look off this site and see.
Be safe
Rory :takecover:

I honestly don't know if you're right or not. But I think there's a strong devil's advocate argument to the contrary. The existing community of people with prior sailing miniatures collections is not all that huge--it's kind of a niche. And furthermore, everyone who is in it has already made a big commitment and crossed all kinds of hurdles the average SoG player probably never will. This shows they are motivated customers, but it might also suggest that they are not the right target for a very nice, but still mass-produced product.

Existing miniatures players have already made the mental commitment to doing the work of painting and constructing. They probably enjoy it. They are probably attached to the look of their models and unimpressed by anything that could plausibly be mass produced. They can get way more variety of ships from existing vendors and customize them any way they want. In principle sure they might have chosen to augment their fleets with some SoG, but in practice there might have been all kinds of mental barriers that would have inhibited it from happening.

If that's true, than the SoG folks were right not to spend too much time worrying about the hardcore modelers, and instead focusing on a more casual, and potentially larger, market.

Also, it's worth adding that I think it's really only the people that *already had a big investment in existing models* that are affected by these issues. People who generally like miniatures gaming, but never wanted to build a sailing fleet, could still in principle buy SoG ships, take out the base-cards, and they'd be good to go with whatever rules they like.

Dunno, either view seems plausible, I guess to some degree time will tell, and to some degree it will always be a matter of debating "what might have been"...

Volunteer
02-10-2014, 11:31
I don't know about that. When Aries first announced they said the ships would be 1:1200. I was very excited as I know many other AOS gamers were as well. I intended to add them to my fleets without reservation and looked forward to a new rule set to try. I don't believe I was alone in these sentiments.

Gunner
02-10-2014, 11:32
I've talked to people who have never gamed with naval miniatures and are waiting for the starter sets to get back on the market (for under the $90.00 range) And all I can tell you is, I have built, painted and rigged well over 100 ships over the (many) years and am still excited about SGN's finished ships. Would I make some changes with their product, of course, but am still grateful for their product. MHO.
We had a eight man, eight ship game Saturday with experienced gamers and all seemed to enjoy the game.

fredmiracle
02-10-2014, 11:40
I know in the software world that was always one of the "million dollar questions"--do we try to extend the product to capture a bit broader market or not? If you were unwilling to do that at all, you would normally fail. Some flexibility is critical. But if you did it too much, and lost your core focus, then you were also likely to fail, because your product would begin to be less useful to its core audience--and more intangibly, your development team would lose its sense of what the product was really about. Tough choices to navigate.

Perhaps it's a similar issue with game design, or perhaps not. I do respect the fact that Ares seems to have a strong sense of what their product is and what it isn't. I think that has served them well in terms of the quality of the product produced. I'll be interested to see where they go both with product expansion, and with possible evolution of the rules. I just hope they have the bandwidth to give the game ongoing care and feeding.

Gunner
02-10-2014, 12:10
There is an old and very true saying,

" I don't know the formula for success, but the formula for failure is,
trying to please everyone."

Kind of like the way our country is going.

Пилот
02-11-2014, 02:35
There is an old and very true saying,

" I don't know the formula for success, but the formula for failure is,
trying to please everyone."

Kind of like the way our country is going.

Your country is total rookie on that subject, compared to mine...

I bellieve the mass production of prepainted ships is good decision. Scale could be 1:1200, I agree, but this one isn't bad at all. And, having in mind rules are available on Ares' site, and that the other stuff will be probably available (as we are experiencing on Aerodrome), gamers which already have their fleets could use them with SoG rules pretty soon.

Building and painting miniatures is important part of the hobby (and I enjoy it). But, is not important for somebody who just wants the play the game. There is lot of people I know which don't have particular armies fo all wargames they play (and few of them without armies at all), but there always are plenty of fully painted armies to be played with - as the others, more comitted to hobby usually have 2,3 or even more ones.

In fewer words, Ares strategy is good one.

Berthier
02-11-2014, 03:22
Building and painting miniatures is important part of the hobby (and I enjoy it). But, is not important for somebody who just wants the play the game.


Hit the nail on the head, in two sentences.

Hood
02-11-2014, 06:07
Hit the nail on the head, in two sentences.

It is interesting reading these discussions. I am of the modelling and painting persuasion but, prior to the introduction of SGN, had never considered Naval gaming. The starter set ,with pre painted miniatures ,grabbed my attention for an easy play game with my 11 year old son. Now I've taken the plunge and read the threads here, I find that I'm increasingly interested in modding the ships and expanding my collection. Ares must have done something right :-)

Devsdoc
02-11-2014, 11:10
Hi! All of the above,
I think you are all right. I just do not understand the change of scale from 1-1200 to this odd 1-1000 scale. I enjoy doing the ships, islands, shore-lines, harbours and batteries etc. As one would have seen before the big hack. But it takes time to build up the ships for a large game. The idea of adding X number of lets say 3rd rate ships to my fleets, all done and ready to go was a rub my hands and jump for joy moment. Add to this a new set of rules, I thought my ship had come in. O.K. for me they are not the best in the world, but to play a new rule system or/and add them to my ships for the big game with big fleets. The time saved and fun it would have added to my world.
Then came the scale change. Why? Ares said they could not make the ships smaller. How come other companies can? I can think of 3 that do Napoleonic ships, and if you add different periods more companies come to mind. Who else makes or plays 1-1000 scale ships?
I can see lots of gamer's (alas) pirating the parts of the game to miss out buying the ships. As the rules would work with 1-1200 scale with very little tweaking.
I do wish Ares and SOG all the best. For itself and for my ship-mates here. But I stand by my last post on this thread.
Be safe
Rory

fredmiracle
02-11-2014, 12:17
Hi! All of the above,
I just do not understand the change of scale from 1-1200 to this odd 1-1000 scale. ... Why? Ares said they could not make the ships smaller. How come other companies can? I can think of 3 that do Napoleonic ships ...

again, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but see it from Ares' point of view

Are there companies doing 1:1200 scale turnkey pre-painted/decorated fully-assembled durable plastic ships? I'm not aware of any, but I don't know the market well.

Comparing Ares' ships to metal, you-assemble-them-and-paint-them-yourself products is a bit apples-to-oranges.

Plus I think Ares didn't say they COULDN'T do it, but that the look wouldn't be up to the standard they had set. Even leaving the decorating aside, just the size difference alone could make a difference in improving the visual "pop" from seeing the ships in the package.

All that to say I find it a (debatable of course) business decision, and not an incomprehensible blunder, that Ares might have sacrificed the modellers with existing 1:1200 fleets to create a product more appealing to the mass market.

And of course it's easy for me to be sanguine about that business decision, because I didn't have any ships and Ares made this type of gaming available to me for the first time. :takecover:

Gunner
02-11-2014, 12:42
The bottom line is that it looks like 1/1000 is here to stay. If it gets big enough, I'm sure some company will make buildings etc. in the new scale.

So to me, complaining about this new scale is old news. They won't change so, accept it or move along.

I don't mean you Rory, just that train of thought.

GreenLaborMike
02-11-2014, 12:59
Looking at this purely from a business standpoint, I think Ares' took a big gamble going with 1:1000 scale, but it has paid off handsomely, and may pay off even more handsomely going forward. I don't mean to second guess their choice, but I like these little mental exercises. Feel free to ignore my musings...

If Ares had stuck with 1:1200 (putting aside any manufacturing issues. It wouldn't surprise me if plastic ships at that scale would have several QC issues, although I'm no expert on that topic), the pressure would have been high for them to alter their production schedule dramatically. Owners of existing 1:1200 scale ships would demand the necessary gameplay elements (ships cards, ship logs, and perhaps ship bases) to use their own models. Ares may or may not have responded to that pressure, but I think selling just the cards/logs would be disastrous for Ares in the long run. Here's why:

1. As we already can see from other games like WoG, X-Wing, Star Trek Attack Wing, etc., there is a practical and financial limit to how many ships a company can produce at once. So they are sold in "waves". The limits of producing ship models don't apply to producing cardboard ship logs and ship cards, though. The necessary capital and manpower to produce them is WAY lower.

So what if they produce ship cards/logs/bases for existing historical ships for gamers who already have lots of ship models in their collection - even before Ares is able to produce the corresponding models to go with them? Their profit margin would go down (cardboard pieces don't sell for as much as the ship models), and there would be a risk of alienating new players who would want to play with these new "ships" but don't have the models with which to play them (and lets face it - completionism is rampant among gamers, so this isn't all that speculative). This invites competitors to start producing ship models to compete with Ares' own ships - and what's to stop them, if Ares' is essentially inviting players to use third-party ships to play SoG by producing the cards/logs/bases?

2. Alternatively, what if they only release ship cards/logs/bases for separate purchase as the same time as they release their own models? This potentially alienates players like Rory (sorry Rory - you are just the stand-in example!), who wonder why Ares is "preventing" them from using their own Langton's models. We "know" that it's easy-peasy for them to publish the ship cards/logs/bases for dozens of ships right away because the cost to produce them is so low (relatively speaking). And as discussed above, selling the cards/logs/bases is necessarily cutting their own profits. Third parties can freely sell their own 1:1200 scale ships (whether it's top of the line Langton's or lower end plastic knockoffs) and market them to SoG players knowing that Ares is providing the necessary materials to use these ships in their game. Why should Ares allow competition an even playing field?

3. Ares can decide NOT to produce ship cards/logs for separate purchase than their models, so that they don't give third party competitors an even playing field. The difference in scale is not so large that players can't still use the 1:1200 ships mixed in with 1:1000 scale ships, as it is the ship's base that is important from a rule perspective. Yes, the difference in scale is likely noticeable to a casual observer, but not so large that it takes away from the gameplay. So if hobbyists want to use their own ships, they can jury-rig (sorry, couldn't help myself!) their own cards/logs to use their own ships.

But then, if players are jury-rigging their game to include their own ships, why should Ares' bother at keeping the models at 1:1200 anyway? Especially if there are manufacturing issues that makes it more practical for Ares to use the larger scale? So then we are back to where we started.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there are a lot of potential downsides to Ares producing ships in the 1:1200 scale, with few corresponding upsides to them. Yes, it's nice for those hobbyists who already own lots of 1:1200 scale ships and don't want to be inconvenienced with a slight size disparity when they use them alongside the "official" SoG ships. But as Gunner pointed out - the easiest road to failure is to try to please everyone.

The one argument I see in favor of Ares publishing at the 1:1200 scale is that they could plan on the ruleset and starter game to be their profit center. The idea being that allowing (encouraging?) third party competitors to make ships usable with the base game will tend to encourage sales of the starter set - something analogous to Microsoft making Windows hardware agnostic - as long as everyone used Windows, they didn't care who actually sold the hardware. But the response to this argument is pretty obvious - the potential market for SoG is extremely limited. Even with the unexpected success of SoG, sales will never reach into the millions of units. It's just too much of a "niche" game. So Ares has to maximize their ability to sell every component to be used with SoG because the profit margin is so small (relatively speaking). Thus, 1:1000 scale is pretty much the right call, IMHO.

Okay, enough of my ramblings. Time to play with little sailing ships!

Gunner
02-11-2014, 13:20
Plus, The next generations of wargamers could care less how many 1/1200 scale ships we have. They'll just know it's easier, having everything they need to play in the box.

Devsdoc
02-11-2014, 13:23
again, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but see it from Ares' point of view

Are there companies doing 1:1200 scale turnkey pre-painted/decorated fully-assembled durable plastic ships? I'm not aware of any, but I don't know the market well.

Comparing Ares' ships to metal, you-assemble-them-and-paint-them-yourself products is a bit apples-to-oranges.

Plus I think Ares didn't say they COULDN'T do it, but that the look wouldn't be up to the standard they had set. Even leaving the decorating aside, just the size difference alone could make a difference in improving the visual "pop" from seeing the ships in the package.

All that to say I find it a (debatable of course) business decision, and not an incomprehensible blunder, that Ares might have sacrificed the modellers with existing 1:1200 fleets to create a product more appealing to the mass market.

And of course it's easy for me to be sanguine about that business decision, because I didn't have any ships and Ares made this type of gaming available to me for the first time. :takecover:

Hi Fred,
First welcome to this mad world.
I have said before for, to glue sails to masts and mast to hull is in all players "can do". If not we all know a friend who could do it for us. If the parts are painted or not.
I do understand you, and think a lot gamer's think painting ships and rigging them as a glass ceiling. Ares opened a big door, which could have been to the promise land. Would you start wargaming with 8mm figures? Not 2mm, 6mm, 15mm or 2omm etc standard scales? I think not? The "pop" as you call it is on the table not in the box. I would see it as oranges-to-mandarins.As long as you only play SOG your in. If in time you wish to move into this naval game big time,you will hit walls. Ares are looking to planes players as a market. Sacrifice us Napoleonic Naval plays! At the end of the day we would be the ones spending money on big fleets.
As said time and time again. Enjoy the ships and the game. As long as Ares make more and more ships and a system to play bigger games (fleet actions) you are in and I hope you would let people like me play with your ships
Be safe
Rory

DeRuyter
02-11-2014, 14:08
Hi! All of the above,
I think you are all right. I just do not understand the change of scale from 1-1200 to this odd 1-1000 scale. I enjoy doing the ships, islands, shore-lines, harbours and batteries etc. As one would have seen before the big hack. But it takes time to build up the ships for a large game. The idea of adding X number of lets say 3rd rate ships to my fleets, all done and ready to go was a rub my hands and jump for joy moment. Add to this a new set of rules, I thought my ship had come in. O.K. for me they are not the best in the world, but to play a new rule system or/and add them to my ships for the big game with big fleets. The time saved and fun it would have added to my world.
Then came the scale change. Why? Ares said they could not make the ships smaller. How come other companies can? I can think of 3 that do Napoleonic ships, and if you add different periods more companies come to mind. Who else makes or plays 1-1000 scale ships?
I can see lots of gamer's (alas) pirating the parts of the game to miss out buying the ships. As the rules would work with 1-1200 scale with very little tweaking.
I do wish Ares and SOG all the best. For itself and for my ship-mates here. But I stand by my last post on this thread.
Be safe
Rory

You have posted before that the scale issue has stopped you from purchasing SOG. That is a shame because your ships are beautiful. So if I may read between the lines, you wouldn't play SOG with your fleets of 1/1200 Langtons tweaked with a special base, etc., because you feel it is akin to stealing (IP) from Ares? Don't get me wrong that is admirable, but what if you bought the starter set and sold the ships on e-bay? Maybe after trying the game at a club or show and you enjoyed the game itself? Would that change the ethical equation?

Just curious because I am sure that, just as happened with WOG, you'll find mods to the game to use different scales and alternate ships, etc. (Just look at the pirate ship mods already).

Eric

Coog
02-11-2014, 14:22
The only thing I mind about Ares doing their ships in 1/1000 is that I can't easily use my 1/1200 ships temporarily to fill in the gaps until Ares produces enough ships for a decent selection. With a production rate that I presume will be one wave a year, it is going to take a few years. I just wish Ares would tell us what their choices are or what they are leaning toward for waves 3 and 4.

David Manley
02-11-2014, 14:30
Its going to take decades for Ares to fill out a decent selection of the kind of things I'm wanting :) I would dearly have loved Ares to stick with 1/1200 as it would have made combining my two favourite rule sets a doddle. As it is thats now just a dream. But at least 1/1000 is close enough to 1/1200 to make it easy to use the smaller scale terrain with Ares models with no real problems. And there are enough existing 1/1200 markers for things like fallen masts, boats, etc. that also work with 1/1000 that there really isn't any significant pressing need for the development of such items. It will be interesting to see if any of the current manufacturers of 1/1200 stuff decide to produce anything in 1/1000 as well.

GreenLaborMike
02-11-2014, 14:51
Its going to take decades for Ares to fill out a decent selection of the kind of things I'm wanting :) I would dearly have loved Ares to stick with 1/1200 as it would have made combining my two favourite rule sets a doddle. As it is thats now just a dream. But at least 1/1000 is close enough to 1/1200 to make it easy to use the smaller scale terrain with Ares models with no real problems. And there are enough existing 1/1200 markers for things like fallen masts, boats, etc. that also work with 1/1000 that there really isn't any significant pressing need for the development of such items. It will be interesting to see if any of the current manufacturers of 1/1200 stuff decide to produce anything in 1/1000 as well.

Based on how quickly the first printing sold out, I imagine that at least a few manufacturers are considering adding a line of 1/1000 scale terrain. Give it a year, tops.

I also have no idea what Ares' planned schedule for Wave 3 and 4 is (I'm sure it's dependent on how Wave 2 goes), but two waves a year seems reasonable if demand remains this high. So that would be 24-32 ships per year (estimating from Wave 1, which included 16 ships, and Wave 2, which will include 12 ships). If you count ship cards being double sided, then that's 48-64 ships per year. It adds up quickly.

Devsdoc
02-11-2014, 14:57
You have posted before that the scale issue has stopped you from purchasing SOG. That is a shame because your ships are beautiful. So if I may read between the lines, you wouldn't play SOG with your fleets of 1/1200 Langtons tweaked with a special base, etc., because you feel it is akin to stealing (IP) from Ares? Don't get me wrong that is admirable, but what if you bought the starter set and sold the ships on e-bay? Maybe after trying the game at a club or show and you enjoyed the game itself? Would that change the ethical equation?

Just curious because I am sure that, just as happened with WOG, you'll find mods to the game to use different scales and alternate ships, etc. (Just look at the pirate ship mods already).

Eric

Michael
I am stand-up guy.unless drunk.

Ed
You have painted ships, I know dropped painted ships, if we follow you on this. Why not just use computer games?


Eric,
This is a two way street. Ares does not help me, so why should I help them? By putting money in their pockets? I do think that Ares has done this (1-1000 scale) to make you buy only their ships. That I can see if Michael is right and Ares bring out more ships and logs, fast! They will have the niche game. And lots of happy players. As I see it they have been late in bring out the first wave, and not in large numbers. You all are gagging for more ships. So Ares wins again.
No Eric, I will not play their games or steal from them.
Be safe
Rory

Gunner
02-11-2014, 15:06
Michael
I am stand-up guy.unless drunk.

Ed
You have painted ships, I know dropped painted ships, if we follow you on this. Why not just use computer games?

I'm with you on your first sentence:drinks:

Don't like computer games. Wasted too many hours, days, months on them years ago.
I like face to face wargaming.:swordright::swordleft:

Tradewinds Ted
02-11-2014, 15:21
I personally like smaller craft, such as sloops, cutters and schooners. These seem a bit small, and roughly modeled in 1/1200 from the photos I've seen, and I expect they will show up a bit better in 1/1000 instead so I like the change of scale.

The downside of course is that they aren't available yet, and the available 1/1200 versions I could get now won't match. But I never really bought into the 1/1200 miniatures before either, despite an abiding interest in small sailing craft, so that is a pretty weak objection.

David Manley
02-11-2014, 15:22
What I'd really like to see is this kind of thing in 1/600 :happy:

Coog
02-11-2014, 15:49
Some of the small ship actions could be a lot of fun but probaly best served by a different rule set, I included one such scenario (http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1975-Scenario-Ideas-From-quot-On-This-Day-quot&p=28982&viewfull=1#post28982) in the scenario ideas thread just because it had so many different elements that would make it a lot of fun.

Devsdoc
02-11-2014, 16:22
I'm with you on your first sentence:drinks:

Don't like computer games. Wasted too many hours, days, months on them years ago.
I like face to face wargaming.:swordright::swordleft:

That I would love to do, Ed. Face to face across a table. Maybe one day Ed, and afterwards we could try my first sentence :drinks: :salute:


I personally like smaller craft, such as sloops, cutters and schooners. These seem a bit small, and roughly modeled in 1/1200 from the photos I've seen, and I expect they will show up a bit better in 1/1000 instead so I like the change of scale.

The downside of course is that they aren't available yet, and the available 1/1200 versions I could get now won't match. But I never really bought into the 1/1200 miniatures before either, despite an abiding interest in small sailing craft, so that is a pretty weak objection.

Ted, Have you seen Jeffrey Knudsen A.K.A. War Artisan. You can find him on T.M.P. He could be your man for the smaller ships. Hope this helps you.
Be safe
Rory

GreenLaborMike
02-11-2014, 16:25
What I'd really like to see is this kind of thing in 1/600 :happy:

That seems likely if they publish an "ancient ships" edition for roman galleys etc." Makes sense to me at least!

GreenLaborMike
02-11-2014, 16:28
If there is going to be any drinking and war gaming, I insist that I be given the honor of losing my fleet and my consciousness first!

Devsdoc
02-11-2014, 16:29
Ted,
Maybe the game "Away Boards" rules would be up your street too.
Be safe
Rory

Gunner
02-11-2014, 16:30
That I would love to do, Ed. Face to face across a table. Maybe one day Ed, and afterwards we could try my first sentence :drinks: :salute:


I might go to Munich again for Oktoberfest:beer::beer::beer::beer: next year. Maybe on the way back. How far are you from the Heathrow airport?

Gunner
02-11-2014, 16:45
If there is going to be any drinking and war gaming, I insist that I be given the honor of losing my fleet and my consciousness first!

What part of California do you hail from?

fredmiracle
02-11-2014, 20:49
As long as you only play SOG your in. If in time you wish to move into this naval game big time,you will hit walls. Ares are looking to planes players as a market. Sacrifice us Napoleonic Naval plays! At the end of the day we would be the ones spending money on big fleets.

I certainly get your point of view--I would be frustrated too in your shoes, and would have serious doubts about buying into the Ares world.

I think I can pretty safely say for myself I'm not going to regret the missed opportunity to assemble and paint. For the WW2 world I've done a little painting of 3D printed stuff, and I'm proud of the results, but I didn't LOVE doing it, lack the time to do very much, and the stuff just doesn't stand up to the kids as well. To each his own...

John Paul
02-11-2014, 21:27
I believe it's been covered already in this thread, but there was a good reason Ares gave for the change from the original planned 1/1200 scale to the increased 1/1000 scale of the ships. It was purely an ease of production change, as it allowed the painters an easier time in turn around to paint the larger scale models. I think that is a pretty plausible explanation though none of us here can truly read the minds of those running the show at Ares. The other side of the coin, which I believe is an obvious one, is like their other games they intended to sell additional ships and not just the basic game Starter Set. We can't fault them for that decision.

Many years ago when I first started playing AoS games I began with the 1/1200 scale ships that were available. Over the years though it became more difficult for me to paint and rig the ships in the manner I preferred. So I got away from the AoS period and stuck with WW II ships in the same scale. Still whenever I got a chance to play an AoS game at a show I always admired the work that the owners of the collections we played with put into their ships! Even though my eyesight and my fingers were no longer able to match my desire I never lost my taste for the period. Then I discovered the 1/700 scale ships produced by Skytrex! At last I had found a scale I could work with, and found it easier to apply my talents to, so I bought a boat load of them! Though the line was limited, and now sadly out of production it did offer me the opportunity to stay in the period none the less!

I picked up my copy of SoG a couple of weeks ago. The first thing I did was sit down and read the rule book from cover to cover a couple of times. I then came across David's review of the game on his blog. I found he made his points both pro and con very clear and straight forward. It certainly didn't deter my interest in the game, nor make me believe I had wasted my money on the purchase. Were I in a position to do so, I'd give his review an A+ as to content, presentation, and knowledge. I believe the one thing we can all agree upon is SoG is a game first and foremost. It's probably a step below Avalon Hill's "WS&IM", but a couple of steps above the old American Heritage game of "Broadsides"! One thing is for sure from my experience thus far on this site, and having played the game a couple of times, this game IS making waves all around. I mean there are folks here repainting and rigging their ships, making up cards for ships not yet available, and providing a treasure chest full of information on the period! If that allows Ares to produce more and more ships, or motivates new, as yet unknown numbers of players to move into that preferred 1/1200 scale of ships and rules I don't see a down side for all those efforts! It's the main reason we all signed aboard isn't it? :salute: :drinks: :beer: :hatsoff:

David Manley
02-11-2014, 23:46
I then came across David's review of the game on his blog. I found he made his points both pro and con very clear and straight forward. It certainly didn't deter my interest in the game, nor make me believe I had wasted my money on the purchase. Were I in a position to do so, I'd give his review an A+ as to content, presentation, and knowledge.

Thank you for your kind words, sir!

Andy Blozinski
02-12-2014, 05:59
Somehow...I don't think Ares will cancel their whole product line and switch to 1/1200th scale.

Diamondback
02-12-2014, 12:28
Somehow...I don't think Ares will cancel their whole product line and switch to 1/1200th scale.
Oh, you mean like We're Out To Conquer did with Axis & Allies ground-game? :p

Devsdoc
02-12-2014, 12:32
Ed,
Around 2 to 2,1/2 hours away by road. How long would your stop-over be?

Fred,
I do understand you and, only wish you fun and good times with your new ships. I too have played SOG and enjoyed it.

Paul,
I see your point. we are only the moths that must follow the light shined on us by the companies that make the models.

David,
You started all this with your blog I was on your side, still am :salute:

Andy,
Only if we do not buy them and say why. But plays are so, they will jump up and down and count the money :surrender:

Be safe
Rory

GreenLaborMike
02-12-2014, 12:34
What part of California do you hail from?

I'm in Oakland, CA. I can see the cargo cranes at the port from my office window. It's not quite the port of sailing ships I like to imagine it was 150 years ago (I'm not even sure Oakland was a port 150 years ago), but it's fun to watch the ships entering the bay from all over the world.

7eat51
02-12-2014, 14:14
For those who have played with the captain/crew decks, have you any thoughts? Do the cards provide sufficient ship differentiation? I haven't employed these yet, but am curious as to others' experience and thoughts.

DeRuyter
02-13-2014, 08:39
I personally like smaller craft, such as sloops, cutters and schooners. These seem a bit small, and roughly modeled in 1/1200 from the photos I've seen, and I expect they will show up a bit better in 1/1000 instead so I like the change of scale.

The downside of course is that they aren't available yet, and the available 1/1200 versions I could get now won't match. But I never really bought into the 1/1200 miniatures before either, despite an abiding interest in small sailing craft, so that is a pretty weak objection.

You could go big and do it in 15mm with these: http://www.thoroughbredmodels.com/SeaEagles.htm


As Rory mentioned the War Artisan paper ships are also good for small ships. For the War of 1812 ships I believe the scale is 1/300. The "Away Boarders" rules look good but you need a mat with a special grid.

Eric

DeRuyter
02-13-2014, 08:44
Eric,
This is a two way street. Ares does not help me, so why should I help them? By putting money in their pockets? I do think that Ares has done this (1-1000 scale) to make you buy only their ships. That I can see if Michael is right and Ares bring out more ships and logs, fast! They will have the niche game. And lots of happy players. As I see it they have been late in bring out the first wave, and not in large numbers. You all are gagging for more ships. So Ares wins again.
No Eric, I will not play their games or steal from them.
Be safe
Rory

I see your point - thanks.

Eric

DeRuyter
02-13-2014, 08:46
I picked up my copy of SoG a couple of weeks ago. The first thing I did was sit down and read the rule book from cover to cover a couple of times. I then came across David's review of the game on his blog. I found he made his points both pro and con very clear and straight forward. It certainly didn't deter my interest in the game, nor make me believe I had wasted my money on the purchase. Were I in a position to do so, I'd give his review an A+ as to content, presentation, and knowledge. I believe the one thing we can all agree upon is SoG is a game first and foremost.


+1 Great review.

John Paul
02-20-2014, 02:00
Rory,

Should our paths ever cross you will certainly be welcomed to play with my ships anytime! Afterwards we'll hoist a few brews, and exchange the glories in our sea stories! :drinks:

Devsdoc
02-21-2014, 15:07
Rory,

Should our paths ever cross you will certainly be welcomed to play with my ships anytime! Afterwards we'll hoist a few brews, and exchange the glories in our sea stories! :drinks:

Thanks Paul. If I do get to the states, that is a big YES!. It also works both ways.if you come to "Old Blighty" ships, table and brews waiting. :happy:
Be safe
Rory