british sailors

[mt1ss bob]

this question may be covered on the house rule thread, but would like to ask anyways. was not the british sailor and the british navy susposed to be the "best" during this time period? they are susposed to get off something like 2 shots to 1, if this is true (or something like that) how is this reflected in the rules or is it? is it something that is coming? or do I not have a clue what I am talking about?

[Naharaht]

The British sailors were better because they spent more time at sea than their French conterparts, who tended to be blockaded in port. However, I do not think that there is anything in the official rules to reflect that.

[fredmiracle]

The philosophy of the game seems to be that the ship statistics reflect the basic hardware (guns, broadside weight, tonnage, crew complement, etc.)

Any crew quality issues seem to be the province of specific scenario rules. But Ares has provided a couple of mechanisms that scenarios might choose to use. First, in the rulebook, some simple, brute-force rules for the effects of inexperienced crews; and second, the "captain and crew" deck which provides some abilities reflecting highly experienced crews

[The Mad Hatter]

You are correct about British sailors in general being better than their French counterparts. While they did spend more time at sea, one of the major reasons is that most of the capable gunners were removed form the French Navy and put into the Army Artillery or elsewhere. Many of their most experienced naval commanders were either executed or fled when Napoleon came to power as they were seen to be loyal to the French crown.

When you combine the two, it got even worse - non-experienced leaders with non-experienced crews, sort of a recipe for disaster.

Rules don't seem to reflect this in their current form though. I'm not sure you'd get a lot of people wanting to buy and play the French if they were truly as bad as their historical counterparts. Pick any ten random naval engagements of the period, and you're likely to see the British being victorious nine or ten times out of ten. Their navy didn't lose much when it came to engagements between frigates and SOLs. In doing research for my Atlantic campaign, French squadrons were specifically told to not engage with British squadrons of the same size, as I believe they generally knew it was a losing proposition. Most of the French victories came in raiding merchant vessels with little to no escort, thereby making them easy targets, or when they outnumbered the British by such superiority they couldn't possibly lose.

Not sure how fun of a game that'd make though!

[Berthier]

I'm not sure you'd get a lot of people wanting to buy and play the French if they were truly as bad as their historical counterparts.

A few of us enjoy the challenge and the pain.:wink:

[7eat51]

If a game is run in which one side has a significant advantage, victory conditions could be set that still enable the deficient side to win the game. I think in a situation where one runs a game with one-sidedness, it would be important for all players to know this before going in.

Personally, I don't mind playing the weaker side if I know the reason for the game is to explore what it would have been like, or that I have to stay a live for so many rounds - assuming there is a decent probability for success, etc. The challenge could be fun. I think it is important to accept that history does not have to mean sinking or capturing all of the enemy's ships, that it is achieving some goal, whatever that goal might be. Ultimately, though, enjoyment hinges on the spirit the GM sets for the game, and the personality makeup of the players.

[The Mad Hatter]

Agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly Eric!

I enjoy the historical nature of things, and battles are rarely often fought between two equal sides. In fact, reading through many of the Napoleonic sea battles - many commanders only wanted to engage when they had significant advantage, in anything but that, they'd run.

The downside in this is that a lot of the historical battles are very lopsided in terms of the engagement - I've seen lots of things where it's four English frigates versus a single French frigate and a brig. Or three or four SOLs against a couple frigates.

I think a lot of this depends on the personality of the gamer - are you trying to play a game where you both have an equal chance of destroying the opponents army (i.e. points based armies), or are you the type who wants to delve a bit more into the realism of warfare where sides are almost always not created equal. As mentioned, you can tailor the victory conditions so it's not just win by sinking all the enemy ships, but merely surviving five rounds or something else to give players a more equal shot at "winning".

[DeRuyter]

You could give the French/Spanish/Venetians/Turks the "Gunner lacking training" optional rule.

[David Manley]

A few of us enjoy the challenge and the pain.:wink:

Thats why I had a Neapolitan army when I did 20mm Napoleonics :)