Treason: I Commits It...

[csadn]

Finally managed to get a copy of Bombat's _Admiral_ -- from Kiev. (Based on when it was shipped: The trip to the P.O. must have been a humdinger.)

There are *so* many aspects of this game which would have been nice to see in _SoG_. For ex.: The chits and ship cards are magnetized -- if I put a chit somewhere on a card, no amount of clumsiness on the part of Jabba-the-Gamer is going to shift it.

Depending on how Game Storm goes....

[Coog]

Surprised it got produced. Really surprised they are able to get it distributed with current events.

[Diamondback]

Chris, I've actually been thinkingg about a few anti-Jabba options... like replacing the mat with a tray that you drop the log into and shallow compartments corresponding to where you drop each chit on the mat.

[DeRuyter]

I haven't had a problem with chits being bumped or moved. Cards being misplaced or dropped on the floor is another matter however.

[Cmmdre]

Looked like an interesting game system. I was tempted but held off so I could pick wave 2 SoG. I would be interested in reading a review of Admiral.

[7eat51]

Chris, let us know how it plays, and post some pictures if convenient.

[Nightbomber]

The ship models and other elements look a bit childish, but the game system may be interesting. However at the first glance - not my cup of tea.

[DeRuyter]

The ship models and other elements look a bit childish, but the game system may be interesting. However at the first glance - not my cup of tea.

That's my first impression as well. Looking at the game on BGG it appears to be aimed and that market (families and younger children) with advanced rules for gamers. After reading through the play example of the advanced rules by the authors my view hasn't changed. They appear to be playing with a number of ship types all mixed up, frigates, galleons and "battleships". Nevertheless there could be some interesting ideas in the rules. Here is a link to the post:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/21165/admiral-complexity-level-the-most-complex-the-firs

Meanwhile we'll await Chris' verdict.

[Пилот]

From what I see, it really seems a family game, and not a true wargame. But let's wait for Chris' experience.

[csadn]

Well, I have played a couple small-scale (1-on-1 using the smaller units) events already, and here's what I see so far.

-- Movement. _Admiral_ is far less complicated, for both good and ill. On one hand, _SoG_ allows for more variety in curved, while _A_ only allows orthogonal and diagonal; on the other hand, _A_ doesn't require one to keep track of cards, or what card was played previously. While _A_'s advanced rule for movement seem complicated, it's actually much simpler than it sounds (-1 movement for every point off the wind one is; and if one changes direction while moving, one immediately changes to the "new" move allowance -- if that means one's available move is 0, one stops).

-- Wind direction: For all the complaints about _SoG_'s wind-velocity and -direction rules, _A_ can be even freakier -- it is determined by a spinner at the start of each turn, so one turn could be "East, calm", the next "South, storm". And the wind state actually affects how many shots a ship can take (simulating having to keep lower-deck gunports closed), so it's entirely possible for small ships to be unable to defend themselves in hellacious gales.

-- Combat: [sigh] There's no way of avoiding it -- _A_'s combat system is *far* simpler, and *far* superior. All fire is handled by a single d6, with a straight-up 50% chance to hit under Basic Rules (the Advanced Rules make distinctions for range) -- the only annoyance is: For some reason, they chose to go with "odd hits, even misses" rather than a "window" (the number representing how far "open" the window is). Like movement, firing is purely orthogonal or diagonal, and which one uses alters the effectiveness of the fire. (Advanced rules even allow for firing mid-movement, without the arguments over the firing arcs _SoG_ generates.) Damage is not nearly as detailed, but still allows for boarding actions as well as gunfire.

-- Units: _SoG_ has the "granularity" to allow for all the various ship types Diamondback and others have listed elsewhere, but _A_ does have room for expansion of the ship lists (I have already begun considering how to bring US Heavy Frigates_ into the game; the only one _A_ has is a 28-gun FF). There's also room for expanding to "inshore" or "Great Lakes" or "pirate" light units (schooners and such). _A_'s minis themselves are, admittedly, toys rather than "proper" minis (and for some reason, they've mixed 16th-century galleons with 18th-century SoLs), but one could retask existing minis for the purpose of achieving greater differentiation of units (hint, hint >:) ).

I'll be bringing _A_ to Game Storm, so I can (maybe) get some proper blind-testing done. Further bulletins as events warrant, as Calvin once said. :)

[7eat51]

-- Combat: [sigh] There's no way of avoiding it -- _A_'s combat system is *far* simpler, and *far* superior.

That is quite the statement. I am intrigued to hear about your other experiences with this game.

[bakblast]

Oh the bump factor gets its own thread.

I have a scanner....

I have magnetic sheets...

I have sheet metal...

Wink wink say no more:thumbsup:

[csadn]

That is quite the statement. I am intrigued to hear about your other experiences with this game.

Well, it is. _SoG_ requires five different chit sets, in five different containers, plus having to figure out how many chits to draw (and god help you if you're using alternative-ammo rules). _A_ requires... a single six-sided die. *That's* *it*.

I can understand Ares wishing to run with the "no dice" theme; but _SoG_ is an example of why the six-sided die is the platinum-iridium standard for gaming.

[csadn]

So, some results from Game Storm, tho' not nearly as many as I'd hoped for (the folks running the show decided to roll out a new online-event-creation program; said program was Not Even Close To Being Ready for Prime-Time).

Short version: _Admiral_ scores over _SoG_ in almost every aspect -- setup time is much shorter with _A_; movement is much easier handled in _A_, even with the optional rules for changing heading (and does not require unique movement decks for every ship), tho' _SoG_'s is more "granular"; combat is going-away faster in _A_, tho' _SoG_ has more options at the moment (_A_ does not make a distinction between anti-rigging fire and anti-hull fire, for ex.); _SoG_ has a wider ship selection, and a more-coherent one to boot (for some reason, _A_ has 1st-rate SoLs and Galleons in the same set), and _SoG_'s "shiny pieces" (minis, etc.) are much more shiny (but see next remark).

All in all: I can see using _SoG_ for small-unit actions; but for anything much more complicated than the Battle of Grand Port, smart money's on _A_ -- the lack of discrete ship types in _A_ can be easily dealt with, and if one wishes to make the playing field "prettier" there's all manner of options for upsizing the minis (to include The Ultimate Treason... >:) ).

[7eat51]

Chris, that is quite the commendation. You have me intrigued, to say the least.

[Naharaht]

Thank you for giving us this comparison, Chris.

[fredmiracle]

The don't really strike me as particularly comparable, at least from what I can tell on BGG. They seem geared toward much different gaming and simulation experiences.

Like, back in the day, I couldn't have said Third Reich was better or worse than Axis and Allies -- both treated World War 2 air/sea/land at a strategic level, both could be a heck of a lot of fun, but there wasn't really any way you could rank them against each other--you just chose whichever experience you wanted at that particular moment

[DeRuyter]

The don't really strike me as particularly comparable, at least from what I can tell on BGG. They seem geared toward much different gaming and simulation experiences.

Like, back in the day, I couldn't have said Third Reich was better or worse than Axis and Allies -- both treated World War 2 air/sea/land at a strategic level, both could be a heck of a lot of fun, but there wasn't really any way you could rank them against each other--you just chose whichever experience you wanted at that particular moment

Good comparison Fred. Also both are aimed at different audiences. Plenty of good rules for the larger fleet actions already out there. However IMO SoG could be used for the Nile for example, with some selective use of the advanced rules (no crew actions).

[csadn]

The don't really strike me as particularly comparable, at least from what I can tell on BGG. They seem geared toward much different gaming and simulation experiences.

This is true; however, _A_ has its own differing-levels of detail -- for ex., the basic game doesn't allow for mid-turn direction changes, while the advanced version does (and even accounts for the ship's changing its relationship to the wind as it moves). So, depending on the detail-level of the rules being used, one could in fact play a "simulation"-level game with _A_, and do so faster than one could with _SoG_.

[fredmiracle]

OK, I did bring up the word simulation, but the truth is I can't say either one is really a good candidate for *simulating* anything :happy:

Not that that bothers me. I think the "real world simulation" capacity of even the most complex recreational wargame is much lower than we tend to admit, no matter how detailed its OOB or damage charts.

I do like historical flavor though. I haven't played the Admiral game, so I can't really comment, but based on BGG, it looks like it trades off some of the "flavorful" elements of SOG that appeal to me (such as non-grid movement, variety of ammo & damage, crew-management).

While on the plus side, this seems to result in quicker/simpler game and the ability to run bigger fleets, and an experience that is perhaps less chit-bound and logistically challenging.

Which is all good either way, again just different gaming experiences.

[David Manley]

I think the "real world simulation" capacity of even the most complex recreational wargame is much lower than we tend to admit,

Don't confuse "complexity" for "simulation". I get involved in this kind of thing for real and some of the most effective military "simulations" are actually extremely simple models.

I think its also important to remember what level of command at which the game puts the player. SGN is very much a captain's game. You are concerned with the workings of your own ship. Admiral (as the name suggests) places the players as admirals, so they shouldn't be concerned in detail with what is happening on each ship - just as a ships captain shouldn't be worrying about the details of what is happening on his gun decks (he has others to do that for him). Pitching the level of command and hence player involvement is one of the simpler aspects of commercial - and "professional" - wargaming, but often an area where the designer (or contractor) slips up; there is a natural desire to get into the detail, often where that detail is, at the level of command modelled, very much second or third order.

[fredmiracle]

Don't confuse "complexity" for "simulation". I get involved in this kind of thing for real and some of the most effective military "simulations" are actually extremely simple models.


I think that's what I was getting at, in a roundabout way. I feel like any recreational wargame, complex or simple, is wildly unrealistic because all participants have far too much information, command/control is way too centralized and predictable, there is a structure and order to events lacking in real life, and the stakes are too low.

That's just the nature of the beast, but it does make it easier to let go of deep concern over specific details that may or may not be implemented property, and emphasize the overall "fun and flavor"

I'd love to know more about your work, but my guess is that when the military wants realistic simulations, the simple models have to have "socially complex" systems put in place around them to distribute responsibilities among multiple actors, hide information, impede communication, obscure goals and objectives, and try to introduce a sense of meaningful stakes to the exercise.

[csadn]

I think its also important to remember what level of command at which the game puts the player. SGN is very much a captain's game. You are concerned with the workings of your own ship. Admiral (as the name suggests) places the players as admirals, so they shouldn't be concerned in detail with what is happening on each ship - just as a ships captain shouldn't be worrying about the details of what is happening on his gun decks (he has others to do that for him). Pitching the level of command and hence player involvement is one of the simpler aspects of commercial - and "professional" - wargaming, but often an area where the designer (or contractor) slips up; there is a natural desire to get into the detail, often where that detail is, at the level of command modelled, very much second or third order.

That's part of the oddness -- depending on how many and which of the advanced _A_ rules one uses, one *can* get a "captain's level" game out of it; and yet, it still plays much faster than _SoG_ does.

Best example of this is to contrast the combat systems. Under Basic rules for each:

_SoG_: Determine range; draw chits from appropriate bag; organize chits into appropriate-sized chunks for determining damage to each hull box; lay out chits in appropriate hull boxes. Usual time takes 10-20 seconds.

_A_: Determine range; determine how many shots one is firing; roll 1d6 -- if it hits, inflict [# shots] damage to target. Time: 3-5 seconds.

I can whip through an entire flotilla in _A_ in the time it takes to do one ship in _SoG_. And since I'm usually playing in a convention environment, where time is critical ("your game ends at 4PM, and I don't mean 4:01; oh by the way, that includes clean-up time"), how quickly I can whip through a turn is a *huge* consideration -- it affects how many units (and thus how many *players*) I can let into the game; it affects what sort of scenario I might want to run (Trafalgar in _A_ -- easy; Trafalgar in _SoG_ -- not a prayer); it affects *everything*.