Raking question

[nilliom]

Is raking only available from a full broadside, or also from stem and stern arcs? The only example is from a full broadside.

Thanks

[The Royal Hajj]

Only from the full broadside.

[Diamondback]

Which is a little ahistorical... that telling opening rake from Victory at Trafalgar was IIRC the forward section only, since most of the damage was assessed as coming from the lone double-shotted 68# carronade on that side IIRC.

But, it is what it is...

[Пилот]

I tend to agree with Diamondback on this.

Raking should be counted for partial broadside, too. Fortunately, good set of house rules can solve something like that :fixit:
And, maybe, partial broadside raking could be rounded down.

[The Royal Hajj]

I'm fine with the rakes only coming from the full broadside. Other wise rakes would happen way to often in games.

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5734&d=1372731831

That's a really large arc to be making raking shots from.

[Beowulf03809]

Agree with Keith! After just a couple games I would saw we had 2-3 rake shots per game but easily another 3-5 where it could have happened if front/aft shots counted. Damage is already pretty devastating and additional raking is not something I think needs to be added.

Historical vs. Fun

:rum:

[csadn]

Given a "fore" or "aft" shot is ~half what the full broadside is, doesn't that mitigate the effect somewhat?

[Beowulf03809]

It seems you can take a lot of shots as fore/aft (most of our shots fell in one of those) due to the wide angles. And it was enough for all four SoLs to get smashed up pretty quick and effective. Several of those COULD have been a rake if the rules allowed. So I would say the extra chits from those would have actually had an impact. Obviously not as much, but an extra draw is still an extra draw and could mean the difference on filling a box.

:rum:

[The Royal Hajj]

Not as much as not allowing it ;) As a game designer, why would I create a mechanic to lower the damage done by the fore and aft shot only to give you a rule that would give have that reduced damage back? Plus, why would you get any kind of bonus from a weakened shot? Just does not make game sense to me.

I think giving such a large arc of fire for a rake goes against the feel of what those shots were. When I envision a raking shot back in those days, I see the attacking ship sitting right behind or in front of the target ship, really hammering it. I don't envision the attacking ship some half ship's length to either side.

[7eat51]

I agree with Keith. I, also, think only using the full broadside requires sharper maneuvering on the part of the ship's player, and as such, when it occurs, it has greater impact in terms of making an impression on players. If it becomes too easy to do, it can cheapen the effect, IMHO. When I run or play in games, I always enjoy having memorable moments, and it is those moments we often talk about long after the games are over.

[Beowulf03809]

Good point on the emotional impact of a solid rake, Eric!

Not to threadjack, but if you want to talk "great impact" ....my kids have been playing XWing so jumped into SoG reasonably well. Except on about the second turn of our first game when I told them that ships don't shoot forward, only to the sides. They must not have caught this the first time I went over things. The look on their faces was great.

[Пилот]

Heroic moment are good to remember, I agree. And I still remember Prussian Landwehr three times charging the bridge, and, finaly desintegrating in fourth, desperate, attempt. Even I remember when the Bretonnian peasants drove-off the Dragon!

But, this is also is about historical accuracy and game mechanics. So, how often raking and/or partial raking took place in real life? Would introducing partial rake add to reality? I believe yes, as new level in damage determining. It could be defined that line of sight must never cross longer edges to qualify for partial rake (if target is positioned so that angle of fire covers both edgs, short and long, there's no rake), and to round number of counters down. It could make difference.

Of course, as I always say, hose rules can cover anything, even sea monsters; but I also believe that my above ideas are far from spawning Kraken :happy:

[7eat51]

Heroic moment are good to remember, I agree. And I still remember Prussian Landwehr three times charging the bridge, and, finaly desintegrating in fourth, desperate, attempt. Even I remember when the Bretonnian peasants drove-off the Dragon!

But, this is also is about historical accuracy and game mechanics. So, how often raking and/or partial raking took place in real life? Would introducing partial rake add to reality? I believe yes, as new level in damage determining. It could be defined that line of sight must never cross longer edges to qualify for partial rake (if target is positioned so that angle of fire covers both edgs, short and long, there's no rake), and to round number of counters down. It could make difference.

Of course, as I always say, hose rules can cover anything, even sea monsters; but I also believe that my above ideas are far from spawning Kraken :happy:

My natural inclination is to defer to historical precedent, but now a days, I have a growing interest in fun, however that is being defined for a given gaming session. For me, it used to be hyper-realism; now, it is more of a feel issue and the dynamics between players. For the various reasons mentioned above in different posts, I will probably play the rule as written most of the time. However, I agree, wholeheartedly, with you, Heмaњa, regarding house rules. I always feel free to adjust rules for a given session if I think doing so will increase the players' enjoyment; the only self-imposed requirement is to ensure everyone understands the change(s) before gameplay begins.

[Nightmoss]

There are more than enough AoS simulation games out there. SoG can certainly add additional levels of sophistication and historical realism, but it isn't why I got invested in the game.

I want something to play that is fun, reasonably fast and not intimidating to friends, family or total strangers I'm trying to get interested in games in general and 'wargames' more specifically.

[7eat51]

There are more than enough AoS simulation games out there.

Like this, by chance?

8773

[DeRuyter]

Like this, by chance?

8773

Bah! :bleh: That is old school compared to SoG, why it still relies on hexes for movement, like its' 1970's genesis WS&IM! :shock: :takecover:

[David Manley]

It is, but it is incredibly popular and is written by kne of the undisputed experts in Napoleonic naval warfare

[DeRuyter]

Not as much as not allowing it ;) As a game designer, why would I create a mechanic to lower the damage done by the fore and aft shot only to give you a rule that would give have that reduced damage back? Plus, why would you get any kind of bonus from a weakened shot? Just does not make game sense to me.

I think giving such a large arc of fire for a rake goes against the feel of what those shots were. When I envision a raking shot back in those days, I see the attacking ship sitting right behind or in front of the target ship, really hammering it. I don't envision the attacking ship some half ship's length to either side.

I agree with Keith here. But this issue brings up something I saw on BGG, a complaint about momentum. So in Victory's famous raking shot she didn't just stop but continued through the line and in that instance her broadside guns fired as they bore on the target. In other words a ship would continue on it's course unless she backed sails at the right time, or collided with another ship. So there is an explanation for using only the full broadside arc for a raking shot. Also in a battle of maneuver a ship raking from a longer range would have even less time to get in a devastating raking broadside. So it makes sense to limit the raking bonus.

[DeRuyter]

It is, but it is incredibly popular and is written by kne of the undisputed experts in Napoleonic naval warfare

In game design perhaps. I did enjoy WS&IM, but now I'd rather not have all that plotting and hex based movement. I see Close Action as merely an expensive upgrade to that. As a sailor I do rather enjoy Clear for Action since the computer can realistically maneuver the ships, but it is limited by having to input orders into the computer.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about CA! There are much better alternatives even if you want more of a simulation.

[The Royal Hajj]

So in Victory's famous raking shot she didn't just stop but continued through the line and in that instance her broadside guns fired as they bore on the target. In other words a ship would continue on it's course unless she backed sails at the right time, or collided with another ship. So there is an explanation for using only the full broadside arc for a raking shot.

That's a very good point. In game turns it could be possible for all three fire arcs to get a raking shot (if fore and aft was allowed) as the shipped passed by. This would in effect give the ship a much higher fire power since the full broadside already includes the fore and aft guns. With the ranking bonus on top, it could really over power such a setting... even if it would be a rare case.

[jasperrdm]

I don't care what brand of rake you kids are using. Just rake my leaves. Or in today's case shove the snow. :happy:

[7eat51]

I don't care what brand of rake you kids are using. Just rake my leaves. Or in today's case shove the snow. :happy:

You don't see Alabama and snow show up together too often.

Amazing what is happening in Atlanta.

[Gunner]

The game goes fast enough without expanding rake shots.

BTW, it's 76 degrees and sunny outside.:beer:

[7eat51]

BTW, it's 76 degrees and sunny outside.:beer:

:smack: :swordright: :pistole: :cannonboom:

[Gunner]

:smack: :swordright: :pistole: :cannonboom:

I get the message but, I think I'll have another Cold one to cool off.:beer:

[7eat51]

I get the message but, I think I'll have another Cold one to cool off.:beer:

Ed, it is SNOWING right now here. Don't you want to move back home?

[Gunner]

My back hurts just thinking about a snow shovel.

I love:beer: Arizona.

[Пилот]

Here, we have -7 degree Celsius (19 degrees Fahrenheit), and strong and cold wind, so I prefere :rum: now. For starters. Later we'll see :happy:

[csadn]

I had to turn on the AC yesterday....

>;)

[Wargamer]

So that was what caused it. Turn it down, you are getting it cold here and what you did to Atlanta is very rude.


I had to turn on the AC yesterday....

>;)

[csadn]

So that was what caused it. Turn it down, you are getting it cold here and what you did to Atlanta is very rude.

Wait until I turn it on during Dragon*Con weekend.... >:)

[Ancelin]

Only from the full broadside.

Sorry if the question has been asked before...

Raking takes place when you can trace a line from the dot of the central arc to the center mast of the target ship, and that this lines passes through the front or back of the target's base.

Does raking take place even if this line travels outside the central arc?

In other words: it is possible for the target's base to be within range of the central arc, AND that a line can be traced between the dot and the center mast of the target ship, AND that this line passes through the front or back of the target's base, BUT that the line itself travels out of the central arc. Does raking take place then?

I had that situation playing a solo game once and had no one to argue with.

Cheers!

[7eat51]

Welcome Bertrand, please stop by the Welcome Aboard forum and introduce yourself. Folks will be glad to meet you: http://sailsofglory.org/forumdisplay.php?5-Welcome-Aboard

I am not sure if I understand your question fully, but if the line has to go outside of the arc, then you cannot fire the full broadside, hence no raking. Note, I am highlighting the word "has". Is this what you are asking?

All shots from any point of the firing ship must remain in the respective arc.

[fredmiracle]

In other words: it is possible for the target's base to be within range of the central arc, AND that a line can be traced between the dot and the center mast of the target ship, AND that this line passes through the front or back of the target's base, BUT that the line itself travels out of the central arc. Does raking take place then?


I can see your point, the wording might arguably allow such an interpretation.

However I think the spirit/intent of the rules is clearly that a raking shot must be a full broadside, not a fore or aft partial broadside.

It seems to me this is most clearly implied by this sentence (p. 25)

"If the line passes through one of the short sides of the target base, the ship may fire a raking shot from its central firing arc."

There's no suggestion there that raking shots can be fired from any other arcs.

[Ancelin]

Just to clarify. I do think that the intent is that the line needs to stay within the arc of the central broadside when aiming for the central mast.

Raking should take place when all the following conditions are met:

1. Target's base in range of full broadside, AND
2. A line can be drawn from dot of full broadside to central mast of target while passing through one of the short sides of the target's base, AND
3. Line described above stays within the arc of the full broadside.

I think that the third condition could be more explicit in the rule book, as it is possible for a target to be in range for a full (central) broadside when aiming at the base, but that the center mast itself is out of range of the central firing arc (it is a much smaller target). The way the rules are written, one could therefore argue that raking could take place if:

1. Target's base in range of full broadside, AND
2. Line can be drawn from dot of full broadside to central mast of target while passing through one of the short sides of the target's base.

Thank you for your replies.

[DeRuyter]

Just to clarify. I do think that the intent is that the line needs to stay within the arc of the central broadside when aiming for the central mast.

Raking should take place when all the following conditions are met:

1. Target's base in range of full broadside, AND
2. A line can be drawn from dot of full broadside to central mast of target while passing through one of the short sides of the target's base, AND
3. Line described above stays within the arc of the full broadside.

I think that the third condition could be more explicit in the rule book, as it is possible for a target to be in range for a full (central) broadside when aiming at the base, but that the center mast itself is out of range of the central firing arc (it is a much smaller target). The way the rules are written, one could therefore argue that raking could take place if:

1. Target's base in range of full broadside, AND
2. Line can be drawn from dot of full broadside to central mast of target while passing through one of the short sides of the target's base.

Thank you for your replies.

No need for clarifying language, your answer lies in the Basic shooting section defining firing arcs. On page 15:

"If the combat ruler can reach any portion of the base
of the target ship, while staying within the firing arc
of that dot, the ship can shoot with the guns of that
side’s arc."

Then you have the additional restrictions imposed by the section on rakes on pg 25 as above.

[David Manley]

A simpler way to think of it is (assuming that the mainmst is in the centre of the ship card) is that the line of fire must fall within the arc of the full broadside of the firing ship, and must pass through both short sides of the target's base.

[fredmiracle]

... (assuming that the mainmst is in the centre of the ship card) ...

I have been wondering whether I should be making this assumption. I've normally been measuring from where the mainmast attaches to the deck. That usually puts it a good bit behind the center point of the base for most of the models. Simply whether you measure from the top of the mast or the bottom seems to introduce noticeable differences in terms of wind attitude...

[7eat51]

A simpler way to think of it is (assuming that the mainmst is in the centre of the ship card) is that the line of fire must fall within the arc of the full broadside of the firing ship, and must pass through both short sides of the target's base.

I don't have ships in front of me to check, but is it possible for a raking shot to pass through the near short base side and mainmast, but exit along the long base side past the mainmast? I am envisioning a situation in which the raking occurs just when the line of fire is able to pass through the near short side and mainmast while running along the edge of the firing arc (the arc creating a window in which raking can occur). Does this make sense?

[7eat51]

As I think about this more, it really depends upon the actual physical location of the mainmast on the mini. If the mainmast is positioned dead-center, than a raking shot would pass through both shorts ends. If it is not dead-center, I think it is possible for the line to exit a long base side. I really should get back to grading, but this is quite fun.

[Nightmoss]

I like David's suggestion of having the line passing through both short sides of the base. However, it has been pointed out that some of the ships have a mainmast that's not in the exact center of the ship card. If ever in doubt wouldn't it be best to remove the ship and see if the line passes over the base and card centers (which should be the hole for the ship plug)?

[7eat51]

One thing about the RaW is that it is a quick approximation of a raking shot. Similarly, stating it has to cross both short base sides is equally as quick of an approximation. I think as long as it is clearly known how it will be played in a given game, there shouldn't be a problem. When one considers a rake, one would do so by gauging with one's eye the probability of crossing a short base side and mainmast or two short base sides. I don't know how many players would debate in a game the relative merits of either way, especially if the argument centered on the placement of the mainmast on a given ship sculpt.

[Diamondback]

Both shorts leaves no doubt--if it's crossing both shorts the mainmast is DEFINITELY in range regardless of position.

I'm gonna vote for the Keep It Simple, Stupid option without having to fight with worrying about different mainmasts on different ships.

[David Manley]

It also gets you away from the faintly silly situation of the arc for a successful stern rake being wider than that for a bow rake (or vice versa) just because the mainmast position is biased forward or aft of the centre of the base.

[DeRuyter]

Both shorts leaves no doubt--if it's crossing both shorts the mainmast is DEFINITELY in range regardless of position.

I'm gonna vote for the Keep It Simple, Stupid option without having to fight with worrying about different mainmasts on different ships.

+1

Having a GM to judge the situation takes care of it as well :steer:

[7eat51]

I'll adopt the both short side idea at Origins, and will provide a reflection afterwards. Given seven games of differing complexity, Origins could be a good place to try various house rules. If there is anything you want to see play tested, let me know and I will see if I can incorporate it - especially ideas that simplify things and keep the game moving.

I'm with you Eric, let the GM decide and move on.