RULE CHANGES

[Gunner]

If Ares were to make rule changes, what would you recommend?

[Andy Blozinski]

There should not be a difference between the rules levels on whether or not you can pre-measure wind. It needs to be consistent in one chosen direction. I vote for allowing pre-measuring.

Friendly ship collisions. Either they cause entanglement instead of damage, or they cause chain shot damage.

Fire damage is brutal. I don't see why there are even explosion rules when your ship would get gutted so damn fast by the fire from three fire counters you're unlikely to have a chance for an explosion. I would say the solution is that the first crew action turn gets the fire temporarily "under control" (it stops causing damage that turn, but it's still going) and the second turn extinguishes it. This means you can take a minimum one box instead of two.

[Diamondback]

I'm with Andy on pre-measuring--a real ship's officers would be able to tell wind direction at all times by both sight (pennants, streamers etc) and FEEL, and while it could change dramatically it wouldn't be like an eyeblink.

For a longer, more drawn-out game I would propose using alternate stats of one Burden per 50 tons actual BM as opposed to the 100 of standard, adjusting all Burden-based rules accordingly, and upping the Gunnery stats, either to a flat doubling or maybe to 1 chit per 75# of broadside. Keep fire and flood damage to the same rate of spread as standard, but they have twice as many boxes to eat through--and maybe flooding should have a chance to reduce or extinguish fire.

[Пилот]

Maybe just technicality...

Drawn damage counters should be returned to the box immediately. Damage boxes should be covered with appropriate markers. This would make chances of taking different damage equal and uncertain.

[Gunner Godson]

Yeah I also have to agree with the wind measuring as stated above.

[7eat51]

I think it should be acceptable to pre-measure wind. As mentioned, we are dealing with players, looking at a playing surface in which wind might not be as clearly observable as thought, especially if non-Ares mats or laying surfaces are used.

I think damage counter replacement is a good idea. Currently, the only way I am getting around it is to use multiple sets of damage counters, but I am not especially happy with that. This issue becomes more problematic, I believe, with larger engagements. I am contemplating rolling dice for damage, using the damage chits for markers on the logs. We'll see.

[HMS Lydia]

I agree with David on getting rid of the second planned movement card (actually don't want to put words in anyones mouth, I don't think he has said "get rid of", more doesn't feel right). These ships were moving at speeds 12knots or less, and these turns based on reload times are at least long enough. Most sailing ships had massive rudders. Once again as stated above, the captain and crew would be expert enough to anticipate from what the enemy is doing currently. The current turn movement card is restrictive enough to limit reaction.

I haven't played with the advanced rules yet, but it does seem as though fires are extremely damaging.

[fredmiracle]

I feel silly posting since I haven't played yet, but hearing what people are saying and thinking about the percentages behind their feedback, the "damage velocity" does seems like a bit of an issue. I think if that bears out, I'd like to see a "less damage" variant that doesn't involve me having to create custom ship logs or anything like that. Likely to involve a recommended bashing of two chit sets together to dilute the high and critical damage a bit, plus perhaps tweaking of the fire/flood rules (?)

[Horatio Le Rêve]

Maybe just technicality...

Drawn damage counters should be returned to the box immediately. Damage boxes should be covered with appropriate markers. This would make chances of taking different damage equal and uncertain.

I and my gaming group completely agree with this -- and it is the way we handle damage in WoG.

I also agree with premeasuring the wind.

Cheers!

[7eat51]

and it is the way we handle damage in WoG.

With WoG, I use 4 A-decks, and our games have had 8 or fewer planes. I dislike the thought that an early Boom card draw relieves everyone from concern for the rest of the game. At least with four decks, the possibility of the higher damage-type cards remains. That said, I seem to have less problem pulling cards in WoG than counters in SoG. With WoG, the tradeoff between the mechanism and probabilities does not seem as pronounced to me, at least in feel. Maybe with more SoG experience, I might find the current draw mechanism perfectly fine, but I don't think it likely.

[csadn]

I'm on the wrong computer ATM, but I have plugged the chit-draws (all of them -- wind as well as guns) into HeavyMetalPro's random-number generator; if anyone's interested, I can copy the data over (the beauty of the program is: It uses files from Notepad, so even an idiot like me can program the beast).

[7eat51]

Chris, I am interested in seeing what you have. Thanks.

[buetowmt]

I feel silly posting since I haven't played yet, but hearing what people are saying and thinking about the percentages behind their feedback, the "damage velocity" does seems like a bit of an issue. I think if that bears out, I'd like to see a "less damage" variant that doesn't involve me having to create custom ship logs or anything like that. Likely to involve a recommended bashing of two chit sets together to dilute the high and critical damage a bit, plus perhaps tweaking of the fire/flood rules (?)

We have been experimenting with slower ways to accumulate damage. For example, only filling a box when double the number is reached, so twice the burden of points or two crew hits. (We've also tried triple). Also, when a box is full, we mark it with a brown marker (either crew or any marker upside down).

We've also experimented with a "critical hit" rule where you check for special damage only if the box is completely full on that salvo. You check whether each special damage occurs then with a chit pull from the E counters. (0, nothing or a crew then the special damage happens).

I think, also, that the damage accumulation must be because of the scale of the game. An "A" range doesn't translate to being "far" away in a game like Close Action, let's say. I suspect that anything within any ruler distance in SoG is probably equivalent to just one or two hexes on Close Action or Flying Colors, where damage would mount quite quickly too.

And, geek that I am, I may dig out CA and just look at some comparable ships and ranges and see what sorts of damage would be inflicted. I have a hunch it would actually be pretty close. The scale of SoG just makes it play much quicker.

Mind you, we've played only with Advanced rules and most optionals. I think the game might go a tad longer when just using the Standard rules (because of no initial broadsides and no special damage). I'm going to try Standard rules at my game group today.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

I'm on the wrong computer ATM, but I have plugged the chit-draws (all of them -- wind as well as guns) into HeavyMetalPro's random-number generator; if anyone's interested, I can copy the data over (the beauty of the program is: It uses files from Notepad, so even an idiot like me can program the beast).

I too would like to see this data.

Cheers!

[David Manley]

What is this HeavyMetalPro random number generator of which you speak?

[7eat51]

What is this HeavyMetalPro random number generator of which you speak?

I thought I was alone on this. Do tell, Chris.

[Пилот]

Not alone...

[Diamondback]

Beating Chris to the punch...

http://www.heavymetalpro.com/

I had to Google.

[csadn]

Specifically: http://www.heavymetalpro.com/RUS_Features.htm .

I think it's been updated; I'll have to check my copy. And let's face it: The price can't be beat. ;)

[BSG_Fan]

I would agree with others who've suggested eliminating the second planned maneuver card. It doesn't feel right, and in my experience it turns SOG into a massive guessing game. It's mildly annoying to try to guess what a human player is going to do 2 turns in advance, but at least you have some idea of where your opponent might logically be going. However, the two turn planning can make the solitaire scenarios downright impossible...due to the combination of random cards from the solitaire maneuver deck and planning two turns out, I've had games where I had trouble even staying in range of the enemy.

Planning two turns in advance just makes it too difficult to recover from bad guesses about your opponent's movements.

[Ken H]

When a damage box is full those chits and any "0" chits on it are returned to the pool and the damage is marked with an appropriate "X" chit.

Pre measure wind.

Smaller vessels can too easily damage larger vessels in my opinion. I was thinking that when ships of different classes (burden difference of 3 say) fire at each other the smaller one reduces either the value of the damage by the difference between original broadside strength and burden (chit system hange...) or reduce the number of chits drawn by 1/2 the difference between burden down to a minimum of 1 chit.

[Ken H]

I like planning movement two turns in advance and think it really reinforces the need to think ahead. Poor planning can be brutally punished and I like that.

[Ken H]

Perhaps assigning crew to the sails can also be used to allow avoiding planning of the second turn.

I you want to be able to react quickly you need crew ready to respond.

[HMS Lydia]

Ken, I agree somewhat, but the current movement card is planned in secret and already locks you into a course of action. The reason it feels wrong, is because these ships simply didn't move that quickly and a turn in this game is not representED IN seconds, but longer periods of time (at lest 3/4 to half a minute).

I think Ares did a great job modifying a rule system to another medium and period. I would caution that the rules should not have to mirror WoG. WoG and SoG are two separate games, great they have similarities but they also need to have differences that work within the period and scales they represent. The poor planning and consequences you refer to, already occur playing the basic game (which only uses 1 card). I have two major complaints with the 2 cards system: 1. It is not intuitive in response to your opponent, and due to slow speed of the vessels, and longer turn representation, it siimply does't feel right; 2. with the 2 card system there are too many accidental collisions. Historically, I have thus far not found a single example of ships of the period accidently hitting a freindly ship in battle, not saying it didn't occur.

I have seen people comment that this teaches you not to move so closely together. Sailing vessels moving in line ahead, or in line abreast moved much closer to each other than modern warships. Napoleonic sail, should be all about getting in close.

I play Wings of Glory, and the two card system works well for that game, the planes are moving fast, the turns equal seconds, the need to plan well ahead agrument works well here. I don't want to do something, just because it's done in another game by the same author and based on another game!

Bob

[Beowulf03809]

So far we are enjoying the 2-card planning because it makes the game play very different than anything else we play locally. And we haven't had too much issue with bad guesses. We had a little dancing last weekend but for the most part we don't have too much trouble getting in close and personal. Thankfully the use of the two-card planning is so "independent" in the game system that you can use it or not without having much impact on any other part of the game.

Also, since there is a pretty good variety of chits (no rare "critical damage" chits for example) I don't think returning them to the bag is that big of a deal. At least not with only 4 ships total in the game. Maybe in larger games but then you could also just use two sets. It seems to me the odds have worked out well for damage draws from start to end of our games and as a ship is taken down its chits go back in the bag anyway so you often get a late game replenishment to help reset the odds.

We allow wind measurement. It doesn't seem like a valid piece of information to hold back from the players once we have used it a bit. The lines on the mat already provide a good guess, and even with measuring the cards are just 'vague' enough regarding angles and distances where you may find yourself making a bad choice. It's a penalty that doesn't have a lot of return in my opinion and those are usually best cut.

We have not yet started playing with the extra damage (fire/leak/rudder/mast) because we're just getting close to a comfort zone to add Actions. But we're not rushing for it either because we have heard how brutal it can be...especially fires. If fire/leak damage was mitigated somewhat we may be more inclined. I like the idea of only counting it if it was on a turn where a box was filled...but then most shots seem to fill at least one box. So I'm not sure that will actually slow things down much.

Collisions are another area that feel too brutal in the current versions. Some nice suggestions have come out regarding just entanglement or such. Keep a 'penalty' but don't make a bad turn so destructive...especially if holding to the 2-card maneuvering.

It does feel like an errata of a few items could nail some of the weak points and not needing a full blow v2 of the rules. I know some play testing was done but the volume of that compared to what is coming out now that it's in the wild cannot be compared.

Just my two doubloons worth
:rum:

[fredmiracle]

Mostly I don't need a rule to be historically accurate, so much as to create the proper historical feel.

But the thing that has surprised me about the discussion of the "two card rule" here on the boards, is that it seems to be focused more heavily on gameplay than on either historical feel or historical reality. There appears to be a weak consensus that the rule makes ships ahistorically unmaneuverable. But really it's still not clear to me--were the designers trying to model a "thing" here? Did they get it wrong? Is the game so abstract that these questions simply defy answers?

Actually, more generally, I'm having a difficult time mapping the real-life engagements I have read about (in which, to be honest, the particular maneuvers that were chosen by each side at each point in time, and why they worked out as they did, are fairly opaque to me) to the kinds of maneuvers I imagine I will do in SoG once I have a chance to play. If I had a good idea of how a real captain would have maneuvered, and how closely that maps to SoG, then I might be able to say "ah, the 2 card effect is like in battle X when captain Y miscalculated about Z" (for example)

I'd be fascinated to see someone who knows about such things try to map a few famous engagements to the maneuvers and shots that you would have in SoG, both to see how well it works, and to get a better idea of the tactics and maneuvering paradigms used back then...

[David Manley]

I've not tried such a "mapping" exercise, but my comments and thoughts regarding the 1 card vs 2 card approach stem from the "feel" to which you refer. I strive to achieve a good feel in the rules that I've written, and I also greatly appreciate and enjoy those rules by others that achieve the same. To me the 2 card system doesn't feel like a ship fight. the actions we've fought using it are fun, but it "ain't a frigate action" if you know what I mean. Quite the opposite with the one card system, which to me "feels" right and seems (in my experience at least) to result in frigate duels that look like frigate duels rather than slow motion aerial combat.

[Scargap]

I can certainly see this as a possible alternative if you don't like the two card system. I like the two card system. Large sailing ships do not maneuvers suddenly. Especially in the era of changing all your sail setting by brute force. Although it may be a way of showing the quicker maneuverability of the smaller ships... Maybe the card use should be determined by the size of the ship...

[Wargamer]

Wow, sounds like a discussion group of star fleet battles. Remember that this is a game first. And it doesn't say simulation anywhere on the box. So serious. So tedious.

[Beowulf03809]

I think the discussion of 1 vs 2 card is very strongly in the camp of "how should it feel". It seems a bit split right now on what players think "feels right" for AOS. As I said, it's a simple rule that can be used or pulled without snowball effect on other rules (nothing else depends on or utilizes the second card beyond bording plans) so it really is easy for play groups to go the way they want with this one without needing a rule change.

Fire damage, in contrast, can't be 'fixed' without an actual house rule or errata.

[tmon]

I've not tried such a "mapping" exercise, but my comments and thoughts regarding the 1 card vs 2 card approach stem from the "feel" to which you refer. I strive to achieve a good feel in the rules that I've written, and I also greatly appreciate and enjoy those rules by others that achieve the same. To me the 2 card system doesn't feel like a ship fight. the actions we've fought using it are fun, but it "ain't a frigate action" if you know what I mean. Quite the opposite with the one card system, which to me "feels" right and seems (in my experience at least) to result in frigate duels that look like frigate duels rather than slow motion aerial combat.
One card equals instant change something these 18th century ships couldn't come close to doing.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

Here's a question -- WoG WW1 uses three cards to denote the slow speed of the planes, and WoG WW2 uses the two-card system to denote the faster reaction/speed of the planes. Then what about three or four cards in SoG to denote the responsiveness/speed of the ships? Might increasing the number of cards (possibly based on ship size) promote a "sailing" feel?

Just an idea -- really enjoying the game as it is (advanced).

Cheers!

[Пилот]

...
Then what about three or four cards in SoG to denote the responsiveness/speed of the ships? Might increasing the number of cards (possibly based on ship size) promote a "sailing" feel?
...
I'm affraid such approach would increase chances for collision...

[Gunner]

Here's a question -- WoG WW1 uses three cards to denote the slow speed of the planes, and WoG WW2 uses the two-card system to denote the faster reaction/speed of the planes. Then what about three or four cards in SoG to denote the responsiveness/speed of the ships? Might increasing the number of cards (possibly based on ship size) promote a "sailing" feel?

Just an idea -- really enjoying the game as it is (advanced).

Cheers!

Ships could be on the opposite ends of the board before they could correct it. Don't forget Ships had a whole ocean to maneuver, not just a few mats.
Not to mention that I get a headache just using two cards.

[Scargap]

I like the two-card system. It makes me think of turns in the future rather than the next immediate turn. I believe there is more tactics involved in a 2-card systems than a 1-card system. The last game I played is a fine example of this. In the middle of the game I took a hit that gave me two special damage leaks. The next turn I was starting to flood rapidly which I controlled with pumping. But I needed two turns of repair just to fix the leaking before I could even get to the flooding. Because of the 2-card system I was able to get away from my opponent and repair long enough to come back and finish him off. With a 1-card system he would have sunk me for sure because I never would have been able to maneuver away from him and get away to repair damage. That being said, it is a game and you should play it the way that is most fun for you and your players :beer:

[longagoigo]

BGG posted about an upcoming iOS game, Naval Tactics: Captains of the Spanish Main. Spotted something somewhat relevant in the promo video, "Plan three moves ahead."

[Wargamer]

So far, everyone seems to be about inserting "realism" into the game. How about adding features instead. Cutting out parties, shore assaults pirates and navy, hey even things like the plague or rations depleted and the fixes those would need. Go for fun stuff, not trying to simulate and slow down a system somewhat tedious already.

[Andy Blozinski]

I think the discussion of 1 vs 2 card is very strongly in the camp of "how should it feel". It seems a bit split right now on what players think "feels right" for AOS. As I said, it's a simple rule that can be used or pulled without snowball effect on other rules (nothing else depends on or utilizes the second card beyond bording plans) so it really is easy for play groups to go the way they want with this one without needing a rule change.

This kind of sums up why we don't even need this part of the discussion. The subject is what rules we would like changed/added. You're not going to force everyone else to play 1 card or 2 by enforcing a rules change. Both options are there and will be used as chosen to taste.

[fredmiracle]

Wow, sounds like a discussion group of star fleet battles. Remember that this is a game first. And it doesn't say simulation anywhere on the box. So serious. So tedious.

Boy your tolerance level is low :happy: From the little I've seen, this doesn't begin to approach the "seriousness" and "tediousness" of the average wargame discussion on the internet



This kind of sums up why we don't even need this part of the discussion. The subject is what rules we would like changed/added. You're not going to force everyone else to play 1 card or 2 by enforcing a rules change. Both options are there and will be used as chosen to taste.

I agree we have no need for the card police. It's good to have both options.

But my personality is such that it does bother me in a wargame to have no historical basis for making a rules decision other than "A is more fun that B."

That's not to say that fun goes out the window. Suppose 1-card were more "fun" but less "historical" than 2-card--then I might play 1-card knowing I'm compromising on realism to get a better game, and deciding that bit of reality isn't worth it. But right now I just feel I have little sense of how those game mechanics relate to reality, and that bugs me

[7eat51]

Reading through this thread has been informative. I am preparing seven games for Origins: 3 two-hour basic games, 2 three-hour standard games, and 2 three-hour advanced games.

I am not sure what form of official/house rules I will employ. I will make whatever changes to the official rules clear to all players before the game begins. If they want to play, fine - if not, fine. If anyone starts rule-lawyering or arguing about house rules to the extent that it starts bringing down the mood at the table, I will hand them their token back and allow them to sail other waters. In the end, this is a game, and people should gather to have fun.

[Gunner]

The reason I started this thread was just to get a consensus of what most people would like that differs from the current rules, in the hope that Ares might incorporate some in an errata sheet. (providing Ares reads these threads). And for me to see if I'd like to incorporate some of your thoughts into my own house rules. And have found some that I will use. Thanks and keep them coming.:beer:

[Diamondback]

Or another way: Phased movement - highest burden moves first, then next highest and so on, representing the smaller ships' edge in maneuvering around the bigger ones. (We'll set aside that some SOLs, including surprisingly the Ocean 118's, were said to handle like frigates...)

[Пилот]

So far, everyone seems to be about inserting "realism" into the game. How about adding features instead. Cutting out parties, shore assaults pirates and navy, hey even things like the plague or rations depleted and the fixes those would need. Go for fun stuff, not trying to simulate and slow down a system somewhat tedious already.
When it comes historical wargame, reality is an important issue. Any game can be fun, but every can't be wargrame.

[David Manley]

So far, everyone seems to be about inserting "realism" into the game. How about adding features instead. Cutting out parties, shore assaults pirates and navy, hey even things like the plague or rations depleted and the fixes those would need. Go for fun stuff, not trying to simulate and slow down a system somewhat tedious already.

Ares have had some suggestions submitted covering some of these things - more "fun" added, but in a (hopefully) realistic way :)

[csadn]

Or another way: Phased movement - highest burden moves first, then next highest and so on, representing the smaller ships' edge in maneuvering around the bigger ones. (We'll set aside that some SOLs, including surprisingly the Ocean 118's, were said to handle like frigates...)

_Renegade Legion: Leviathan_ did that -- not only was there phased movement between the sides; the bigger, more-cumbersome units had to move before smaller ones. So even if Side A won initiative that turn, if all it had was Battleships, and Side B had smaller units, Side A was still moving first.

[Andy Blozinski]

_Renegade Legion: Leviathan_ did that -- not only was there phased movement between the sides; the bigger, more-cumbersome units had to move before smaller ones. So even if Side A won initiative that turn, if all it had was Battleships, and Side B had smaller units, Side A was still moving first.

Why bring up phased movement in game where the move is pre-plotted? It's pretty much irrelevant other than cases of collision.

[csadn]

Why bring up phased movement in game where the move is pre-plotted? It's pretty much irrelevant other than cases of collision.

It would be nice to know in advance what the rule is covering that situation. Being able to say "OK, he's bigger than me; he moves before I do" would be helpful.

[Coog]

It would be nice to know in advance what the rule is covering that situation. Being able to say "OK, he's bigger than me; he moves before I do" would be helpful.

Reminds me of how right of way is determined while driving in some lesser developed parts of the world...the biggest vehicle has the right of way.

[Diamondback]

Reminds me of how right of way is determined while driving in some lesser developed parts of the world...the biggest vehicle has the right of way.
As a lady I know who's married to a former tank officer used to have as her signature on the gun forum we were on:
"Remember... Main Battle Tanks ALWAYS have Right of Way."

LOL

[Berthier]

Just been reading a book David Manley mentioned (maybe a year ago!) Storm and Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Conquest-Clash-Empires-Eastern/dp/B0048ELETU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391908576&sr=1-1&keywords=storm+in+napoleonic+1809+indian+ocean

and one of the surprising things you realise when seeing first hand accounts is just how difficult it is to sink a wooden sailing ship. They can be completely dismasted, leaking and battered but still kept afloat and "sailed". There are some sections dealing with two fleets of merchants under escort that went through category 5 hurricanes, the ships that were lost were almost always those that were undermanned with experienced sailors not the better built ships. There are accounts of ships being on their beams for several hours with water flowing over the quarter decks (!) and they still managed to right the ships, pump them out and make headway. I think most games design for effect here with a ship hors d'combat considered sunk by the rules when in fact it's just disabled.

[Diamondback]

This. I think a lot of games remove units from play at merely what's called the "Mission Kill" phase... for example, the only outright "True Kill" of all the Pearl Harbor battleships was the Arizona--the others were only "Mission Kills" (read: "rendered incapable of combat operations for a while") and the only reason Oklahoma didn't rejoin the fleet like the others was her foundering under tow back to drydock in San Francisco.

[Cmmdre]

Just been reading a book David Manley mentioned (maybe a year ago!) Storm and Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Conquest-Clash-Empires-Eastern/dp/B0048ELETU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391908576&sr=1-1&keywords=storm+in+napoleonic+1809+indian+ocean

Just ordered my copy a couple days ago. Thank you for sharing the tip Daniel and David. Looking forward to reading this book.

[Andy Blozinski]

It would be nice to know in advance what the rule is covering that situation. Being able to say "OK, he's bigger than me; he moves before I do" would be helpful.

The collision rules clearly state that ships with the larger burden move first. Page 12 in the rules.

[Пилот]

This. I think a lot of games remove units from play at merely what's called the "Mission Kill" phase... for example, the only outright "True Kill" of all the Pearl Harbor battleships was the Arizona--the others were only "Mission Kills" (read: "rendered incapable of combat operations for a while") and the only reason Oklahoma didn't rejoin the fleet like the others was her foundering under tow back to drydock in San Francisco.

True. It doesn't have to be literally wipped out, and it's fine. In that system particular numbers are not important, but unit's cohesion and fighting ability (downside, ofcourse, is alocating damage if you play campaign.

But, some rules do state that caualties are killed and wounded members. And such rules usualy alocate some big number of casualties to the unit, i.e unit suffers 20-30, even 40-50% at the time (or at the very short period) and continues to fight as nothing happened. It goes for both historical and fantasy rules.

[David Manley]

This. I think a lot of games remove units from play at merely what's called the "Mission Kill" phase... for example, the only outright "True Kill" of all the Pearl Harbor battleships was the Arizona--the others were only "Mission Kills" (read: "rendered incapable of combat operations for a while") and the only reason Oklahoma didn't rejoin the fleet like the others was her foundering under tow back to drydock in San Francisco.

FWIW, and to be technically accurate the battleship losses at Pearl Harbor were most definitely "kills" rather than "mission kills" in accordance with the US Navy doctrines and definitions of the time. The fact that they were recoverable was a fortunate happenstance :)

[David Manley]

This. I think a lot of games remove units from play at merely what's called the "Mission Kill" phase...

Absolutely. Most land games over and above remove units when they are no longer combat effective. In the naval sphere its a bit more "life and death", but the loss of a line of hull or crew boxes in SGN merely defines the point at which the vessel has suffered sufficient damage, or the morale of the crew and the Command has been so adversely affected that they strike their colours

[Blastwall]

Interesting discussion regarding the two card versus one card. I have only played three games so far, Basic, Standard and Advanced with just the ships in the main box - the other ships are waiting to join the fray. I've not yet formed an opinion yet one way or the other. Certainly what the two card system does do is create some sort of representation of forward thinking - where do you want your ship to be to close with the enemy or escape from them? The beauty of the two card system is that you are trying to second guess what your opponent will do and often you get it wrong! That feels like it has some element of reality to it, and perhaps that is why some of the posts here feel frustrated by it? The main thing lacking so far in the game is a sense of crew ability. I haven't added in the poor gunnery option yet but I will, as this was a key element to many of the victories in the era. But so was poor sailing for the same reason. An ill trained or undermanned crew was often the key difference and this element is missing so far. All the ships move and manoeuvre the same, fire to the same effect. I'm toying with the idea of rating the ships. One of the options then might be to allow the better rate ship to redraw the second planned card in the light of the poorer ships move - reflecting a more efficient, better trained crew that can react quicker to events.
The damage can be brutal, but then I think it possibly needs to be. The last game using the advanced rules was over two hours long, mostly with little firing going on - admittedly partly because the British ships were loaded with double shot and were doggedly determined to get close enough to make use of them. When they did, the results were devastating. But if you lessen the damage you may find yourself playing games that have no end - especially with larger numbers of ships. I have also toyed with the idea of striking colours, or attempting to escape when a ship gets to the point where it is perhaps one or two damage boxes from total destruction - possibly more realistic?

[Andy Blozinski]

Interesting discussion regarding the two card versus one card. I have only played three games so far, Basic, Standard and Advanced with just the ships in the main box - the other ships are waiting to join the fray. I've not yet formed an opinion yet one way or the other. Certainly what the two card system does do is create some sort of representation of forward thinking - where do you want your ship to be to close with the enemy or escape from them? The beauty of the two card system is that you are trying to second guess what your opponent will do and often you get it wrong! That feels like it has some element of reality to it, and perhaps that is why some of the posts here feel frustrated by it? The main thing lacking so far in the game is a sense of crew ability. I haven't added in the poor gunnery option yet but I will, as this was a key element to many of the victories in the era. But so was poor sailing for the same reason. An ill trained or undermanned crew was often the key difference and this element is missing so far. All the ships move and manoeuvre the same, fire to the same effect. I'm toying with the idea of rating the ships. One of the options then might be to allow the better rate ship to redraw the second planned card in the light of the poorer ships move - reflecting a more efficient, better trained crew that can react quicker to events.
The damage can be brutal, but then I think it possibly needs to be. The last game using the advanced rules was over two hours long, mostly with little firing going on - admittedly partly because the British ships were loaded with double shot and were doggedly determined to get close enough to make use of them. When they did, the results were devastating. But if you lessen the damage you may find yourself playing games that have no end - especially with larger numbers of ships. I have also toyed with the idea of striking colours, or attempting to escape when a ship gets to the point where it is perhaps one or two damage boxes from total destruction - possibly more realistic?
I think both card options should be open to use. First, it's obviously a player taste issue. Second, I think mixing it in the same game could be used to represent either crew quality or how nimble a ship is. Better crews go single card, crummier crews plot two cards. More nimble ships plot one card, clunkier ships plot two cards.

[Blastwall]

I think both card options should be open to use. First, it's obviously a player taste issue. Second, I think mixing it in the same game could be used to represent either crew quality or how nimble a ship is. Better crews go single card, crummier crews plot two cards. More nimble ships plot one card, clunkier ships plot two cards.

That would be an elegant solution. Will give that a go next time.

[David Manley]

For info, Greg's campaign system is available here:

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/98045/The-Courier-Vol6-No4?filters=0_0_40003_0

I'm working on mine at the moment. I'm thinking of adapting it so that it is rule system agnostic, so OK for SGN, FLoB and other sets.

[Пилот]

I think both card options should be open to use. First, it's obviously a player taste issue. Second, I think mixing it in the same game could be used to represent either crew quality or how nimble a ship is. Better crews go single card, crummier crews plot two cards. More nimble ships plot one card, clunkier ships plot two cards.
Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybode else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.

[fredmiracle]

For info, Greg's campaign system is available here:

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/98045/The-Courier-Vol6-No4?filters=0_0_40003_0

I'm working on mine at the moment. I'm thinking of adapting it so that it is rule system agnostic, so OK for SGN, FLoB and other sets.

That would be great! I really appreciated the pointer earlier.

I find I've been struggling with the area movement approach a bit. On the one hand, it is very pragmatic. On the other hand somehow the idea of HMS Sophie and the Spanish Xebec being "in the same box" and "rolling to see if they spotted each other" seems contrary to the sailing aesthetic.

I've been working on bashing together some of the ideas behind the Glory we Steer and the very simple campaign rules in Heart of Oak to see what comes out. In particular I am trying to put together a computer assistant, to do the plotting and figure out if there are sightings and such, thus allowing you to do away with area movement.

But I don't know if it will all come out or not; and even if I manage to execute it well, I'm not entirely sure it's the right approach to end up with a fun campaign...


EDIT: I must say, before looking at the Glory we Steer rules I didn't really realize how jumbled together France and Britain's Caribbean holdings were. It does seem like it would be hard NOT to be running into each other all the time in those congested waters...

[fredmiracle]

Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybode else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.

Ha, I like that--the "Admiral's nephew" captain who lacks sea-sense and a decisive personality will have to use 2-card plotting :wink:

[David Manley]

EDIT: I must say, before looking at the Glory we Steer rules I didn't really realize how jumbled together France and Britain's Caribbean holdings were. It does seem like it would be hard NOT to be running into each other all the time in those congested waters...

LOl, yes indeed. I'm engaged in an 1803 post Amiens campaign set in the Caribbean. The opening moves were carnage!

[Nightmoss]

For info, Greg's campaign system is available here:

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/98045/The-Courier-Vol6-No4?filters=0_0_40003_0

I'm working on mine at the moment. I'm thinking of adapting it so that it is rule system agnostic, so OK for SGN, FLoB and other sets.

Thanks for the link. A nice supplement to your reply to my question in another thread.

[KeithS]

The complete loss of a ship that sails off the playing surface seems a bit excessive. How about something like marking where the ship goes off, setting the ship out of play for 2 or 3 moves ( to represent the ship coming about ), then bringing the ship back at the point where it exited the board. This still carries a penalty for bad seamanship in that it is out of action and gives the opponents time to set an 'ambush' for when the ship re-enters play, without totally writing the ship off.

[Пилот]

It's always tricky. Someone could abuse leaving the table to gain some benefit (to avoid being shot at, to avoid being caught by bad wind etc.). On the other hand, it would be unfair to limit re-entering point to the old one. And third, how would attitude to wind be determined during absence? That's why I (although dislike "world's edge") incline to leave this rule as it is. And delivering some artificial damage counters to discourage ship to leave the field also wouldn't be right. This with damage we've done in WoG, explanation being unexpected AA fire. And I don't believe we could fit anything similar here (except, just maybe, some terrain damage).

[fredmiracle]

I have a sense that we will probably allow the entire playfield to shift if someone's about to go off the board. Even playing two mats will be a bit tough to find space, when you factor in the ship-charts as well.

[KeithS]

Someone could abuse leaving the table to gain some benefit (to avoid being shot at, to avoid being caught by bad wind etc.).

Yes indeed, that's why I propose having a penalty of some kind, although not quite so draconian as complete removal from the game. Perhaps if a ship is being chased and fired upon the opponent could have a free shot as the ship leaves the board. A limit could be placed upon how damaged the ship would be before it is removed from the game, to eliminate a badly damaged ship 'hiding' off board.


On the other hand, it would be unfair to limit re-entering point to the old one.

Fair enough, a solution might be to have the player nominate where they would re-enter the board to the opponent with a set number of turns missed (a possible penalty in itself) according to how far it is from the exit.


And third, how would attitude to wind be determined during absence?

A simple way would be to have a set attitude on re-entry, say perpendicular to the edge of the board. Alternatively, the player nominates their attitude upon re-entry again with a penalty according to how far it is off the exit attitude.


And delivering some artificial damage counters to discourage ship to leave the field also wouldn't be right. This with damage we've done in WoG, explanation being unexpected AA fire. And I don't believe we could fit anything similar here (except, just maybe, some terrain damage).

Seems a good way of discouraging abuse of the rule, perhaps the damage could be inflicted by a coastal battery on and island outside the play area, or a ship standing off the main battle for some reason.


I have a sense that we will probably allow the entire playfield to shift if someone's about to go off the board. Even playing two mats will be a bit tough to find space, when you factor in the ship-charts as well.

How would you accomplish the shift? Would there be problems if for example there were ships at the other side of the play area, which themselves go off board if the play area shifted? Just curious. :question:

I'm just putting out a few ideas here, and of course anything could be house ruled. I just wondered if there was a possibility of say having an 'official' optional rule to mitigate the cost of sailing off the 'edge of the world'. :happy:

[fredmiracle]

How would you accomplish the shift? Would there be problems if for example there were ships at the other side of the play area, which themselves go off board if the play area shifted? Just curious. :question:


my assumption and hope is that we don't end up with our ships at opposite corners of the map, but of course it's possible. Assuming that there's space to shift, we'll just move all the ships the same distance in the same direction and let the battle continue!

[HMS Lydia]

Large sailing ships do not maneuvers suddenly. Especially in the era of changing all your sail setting by brute force.

I've read at least a few comments similar to above. but this game is not equal to flying an aeroplane. Think in terms of scale, time as it relates to distance and reation time. The individual cards determine how fast the ships react. In WoG, turns equal seconds. In SoG turns equal a minute, possibly a little less or a little more?

Ship captains had lots of reaction time, because these ships moved so slowly, the battle developed slowly! I use the phrase "feels right" or "doesn't feel right" because I dislike the word realism in discussing wargaming. I have never crewed a 3rd Rat SoL or a frigate. And even if I were a crewman aboard Constitution, she is no longer sailed in the asame manner as in say 1812. So what is realistic? By feel, I mean the game somewhat matches battle reports or books of the period (I include both fiction and non-fiction in books, most authors research for accuracy and flavor). Many players are RAW (rules as written) gamers. And thats fine, but the 2 card planning system never made sense to me for AoS.

Ultimately, I agree with Eric, we play these games to have fun! And agreed there is no need for a formal rule change, just play it the way you like. When I run the game, I will probably use a mix of rules that allows the game to flow, and keeps it fun, without taking the AoS feel out of the game.

Bob

[DeRuyter]

For info, Greg's campaign system is available here:

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/98045/The-Courier-Vol6-No4?filters=0_0_40003_0

I'm working on mine at the moment. I'm thinking of adapting it so that it is rule system agnostic, so OK for SGN, FLoB and other sets.


Thanks for the link. Will look forward to your system.

Have you ever tried GMT's "1805 Sea of Glory"? Could be the basis for an 1805 campaign, where two people in a club are the Admirals and make the strategic decisions (play the board game) and others can get together for the battles using your chosen tactical rules.

Eric

[DeRuyter]

Ship captains had lots of reaction time, because these ships moved so slowly, the battle developed slowly! I use the phrase "feels right" or "doesn't feel right" because I dislike the word realism in discussing wargaming. I have never crewed a 3rd Rat SoL or a frigate. And even if I were a crewman aboard Constitution, she is no longer sailed in the asame manner as in say 1812. So what is realistic? By feel, I mean the game somewhat matches battle reports or books of the period (I include both fiction and non-fiction in books, most authors research for accuracy and flavor). Many players are RAW (rules as written) gamers. And thats fine, but the 2 card planning system never made sense to me for AoS.

Bob

Conversely if you guessed wrong or were foiled by your opponents false tack, then it may take some time maneuvering to correct this (or you get raked and your ship is match sticks!).

[Andy Blozinski]

Just recently realized rule that I absolutely hate:
Your hull damage lowers your crew actions.
Change it!!!!!
Only crew damage should lower your crew actions.
This is how much I hate that rule.
http://youtu.be/Czmb6tEwFE8

[Пилот]

Andy, not necessary. Eric had interesting interpretation, which I second. Leftmost empty box counts, never mind is it hull or crew.

[Gunner]

My interpretation is hull and crew are separate. the hand in the middle just shows how many action moves are left as hull or crew boxes are eliminated, and have nothing to do with the ship surrendering or sinking.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

My interpretation is hull and crew are separate. the hand in the middle just shows how many action moves are left as hull or crew boxes are eliminated, and have nothing to do with the ship surrendering or sinking.

I agree, hull and crew take "separate" damage -- the hand (actions) decreases with the amount of overall damage you have taken. Not sure what you mean Andy?

[Andy Blozinski]

I agree, hull and crew take "separate" damage -- the hand (actions) decreases with the amount of overall damage you have taken. Not sure what you mean Andy?
Check the other thread. When it comes to crew actions, you can possibly ignore crew damage and only count hull damage. One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track. Ultimately it means keeping track of crew damage is a waste of time for crew actions.

[Bionic Wookie]

Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybody else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.


As movement is planned ahead, it really does not matter who moves first. Although, when ships are near to colliding, rules do stipulate ships of heavier burden move first. Crew quality was an essential part of the battle, although not ALWAYS a deciding factor. In addition, crew quality for the French in most AOS games is always poor, leaving the British to dominate the period (which is historical). Spanish crew quality is dismal. Another option for crew quality would be to limit the choice of orders from four to three, or two for really green crews. HMS JAVA, when she was taken by USS CONSTITUTION in 1812 was carrying passengers and had all but ignored gunnery training; despite that she nearly beat the CONSTITUTION if not for a tactical error on the part of her Captain.

DAMAGE: Damage accrues all together too quickly. Wooden ships of the period took an astounding pounding and still remained afloat, despite being dismasted, with large chunks shot away and scads of the crew dead. It does make for a quick game, which has its benefits, but is not anywhere near the historical truth. Additionally, it was a given truth throughout the period that a SOL would destroy a frigate in short order, and that the guns of a frigate would not have sufficient penetration to affect an SOL, short of destroying the SOL's rudder. This vast difference does not seem to be represented.

For the level of game SOG is, it is fun, quick and beautiful to behold.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

Check the other thread. When it comes to crew actions, you can possibly ignore crew damage and only count hull damage. One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track. Ultimately it means keeping track of crew damage is a waste of time for crew actions.

As I stated on the other thread, as as shown by the diagram (that shows different amounts of damage on each track, and which action symbol to use), excessive hull damage, or excessive crew damage both impact-- separately--the number of actions available.

In my mind, you cannot logically ignore crew damage and only count hull damage.


One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track.

This may be an interpretation, but it would be incorrect. Remember, the action symbol is between both hull and crew for a reason -- both affect it. Don't over think this -- either type of damage would affect your number of actions, both in game and in "real life." Trust me, we've played many games and killing by crew damage and by hull damage has happened -- and in all cases the number of available actions was determined by the longest damage track, just as the gun or musket number is determined (determined by the next uncovered symbol).

Cheers!

[Gargantulance]

AAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGGGGG!

Why do I have a MAC????
(oh, yeah… it's that graphics thing I do for work!)

Eventually, I'll buy some pc emulator and then some version of windows just to run these "free goodie programs" populating the web.

(sigh!)

This RUS sw looks great! Thank you for sharing…




Specifically: http://www.heavymetalpro.com/RUS_Features.htm .

I think it's been updated; I'll have to check my copy. And let's face it: The price can't be beat. ;)

[Andy Blozinski]

This may be an interpretation, but it would be incorrect.

Cheers!

There are multiple people misinterpreting the rule and they're not even necessarily interpreting it the same way. That means it needs to be changed. I think I understand the way the rule is supposed to be played and it's the same as you. That doesn't mean the rule is clear. It also doesn't mean the rule makes sense. It's pretty easy to find a "real world" example as to why using hull damage to lessen crew actions really doesn't make sense.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

Ok, I agree with you that the sentence needs to be rewritten (I still think the rule itself makes sense :beer:), and then pointed towards that specific graphic. That should lessen the confusion.

From this:


When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.

To something like this:

When a ship takes damage, whether to crew, hull or both, the damage marker is assumed to cover that square's crew-action symbol. The number of actions left to the caption is determined by the first uncovered crew-action symbol, as illustrated in figure XX.

Cheers!

[BSG_Fan]

It's pretty easy to find a "real world" example as to why using hull damage to lessen crew actions really doesn't make sense.

I think the rule in general makes sense. Imagine a situation where a ship has no crew damage, but is down to its last box of hull damage. In game terms, such a ship should be a burning, flooded wreck that's barely capable of doing anything. But if we're assigning actions based on crew damage, then the ship can still fire its (damaged) broadside, pump water, raise sails, and prepare for boarding--in short, this ship doesn't behave like a wreck.

From a crew damage viewpoint, lots of damage on the crew track symbolizes having too few people to do anything. From a hull damage viewpoint, lots of damage on the hull track symbolizes having lots of people but too little ship for them to do anything with (it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 men aboard if all the pumps are broken, all the spars have been shot away, etc). What is of course a little odd is that you can have lots of hull damage but change what parts of the ship are still functional...maybe you've got 1 crew action left and one turn you use it to pump water, but the next turn you use it to lower sail. So the rule is a little strange, but I think it makes more sense than allowing an absolute wreck of a ship to behave in the same way as a fully intact ship.

[Bionic Wookie]

Ok, I agree with you that the sentence needs to be rewritten (I still think the rule itself makes sense :beer:), and then pointed towards that specific graphic. That should lessen the confusion.

From this:



To something like this:

When a ship takes damage, whether to crew, hull or both, the damage marker is assumed to cover that square's crew-action symbol. The number of actions left to the caption is determined by the first uncovered crew-action symbol, as illustrated in figure XX.

Cheers!


I do not have rules with me right now, but as I recall the damage track specifies a loss of ability for the crew to perform actions as casualties mount up. This loss of actions means a ship cannot perform as many actions in a turn. This clearly represents a loss in functionality on a wrecked ship; in addition a wrecked ship needs more crew actions to keep it in the fight: I think this represents the condition you are arguing for. A distinction without a difference. I think the rule is very clear as written.

[Пилот]

Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybody else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.


As movement is planned ahead, it really does not matter who moves first.
..

That's why I wrote "plan and move". Player A plans and moves. Only then B,C, D players plan and move.