Superiority of the Royal Navy

[Comte de Brueys]

Hi comrades, I need your opinion.

I think the superiority od the RN is not represented with the miniatures.

The Temeraire class is the better 3rd rate.

The Amazon class has a good first punch, but the Concorde class has the longer breath.



I wonder if it makes sense to simlpy double the reload time of French ships?


Sounds hard the first time, but a ship has two broadsides and most times it can't fire the same broadside every second turn.


Opinions?

What are you doing to push the RN to the level it belongs to?

[David Manley]

Its a feature which Andrea has happily accepted in the past in order to make a game of it.

[fredmiracle]

apply the Gunners Lacking Training and Sailors Lacking Training rules to the French, and you are set.

[7eat51]

I suggest altering abilities based on audience, purpose of game, and desired feel of the game. I don't think any player should consider themselves tied to what is printed, either in the rules or on the game components. This holds true, of course, for non-tournament play.

If I want to run a game with greater historical accuracy, I would make adjustments for that specific scenario by adjusting stats (e.g. a short-range bonus for carronades), providing captain/crew abilities or limitations (as Fred or you have suggested), or by creating playing rules (e.g. French cannot fired until fired upon).

Ultimately, I don't think I would implement a standing rule; I would make adjustments based on a given playing session's requirements.

[csadn]

Just imagine what's going to happen when the Humphreys frigates hit the table.... >:)

[Diamondback]

A great deal of B----y Little Girl-ness on one side of the table, and on the other a bunch of giggling like little girls snorting crack-laced Pixy Stix while watching My Little Pony cartoons... LOL

[Nightmoss]

A great deal of B----y Little Girl-ness on one side of the table, and on the other a bunch of giggling like little girls snorting crack-laced Pixy Stix while watching My Little Pony cartoons... LOL

What a scary image that entails!?!? :shock:

[Diamondback]

Which is approximately comparable to the respective historical reactions in London and Washington, at least until President was taken...

[csadn]

Which is approximately comparable to the respective historical reactions in London and Washington, at least until President was taken...

Yeah -- it only took running the thing aground and siccing an entire British battle squadron on it to pull it off.... >;)

[David Manley]

...or maybe it didn't :happy:

[David Manley]

A great deal of B----y Little Girl-ness on one side of the table, and on the other a bunch of giggling like little girls snorting crack-laced Pixy Stix while watching My Little Pony cartoons... LOL

You worry me, seriously :happy:

[csadn]

...or maybe it didn't :happy:

Nope -- it did. >;)

[Diamondback]

You worry me, seriously :happy:
GOOD! Means I'm doing my job right... :D

[7eat51]

Sven, while reading today, the author stated that the British were able to get 3 shots off for every 2 of the French. If the French required 2 rounds to reload while the British only the standard 1 round, you would accomplish this ratio. In 6 rounds of play, the British would fire 3 times and the French twice.

[Comte de Brueys]

I think I'll use this houserule for the Solo Campaign when fighting versus RN ships.

Fortunately the treasure ship is a Spanish one. :wink:

[Nightmoss]

I think I'll use this houserule for the Solo Campaign when fighting versus RN ships.

Fortunately the treasure ship is a Spanish one. :wink:

I suppose if you want a simulation rather than a game you can use this house rule, but it's not one I'll consider implementing unless we're ever trying to reconstruct a historical battle?

As Eric said it depends on audience, but very few folks I know will volunteer to play the French under these parameters. 3 broadsides vs. 2 in 6 turns can make a huge difference in play (especially the several solo games I've played to this point)?

That being said this is the purpose of house rules. Your house, your rules. :happy:

[David Manley]

Nope -- it did. >;)

Yes, yes, of course it did, just like you said, sure.

:bleh::wink:

[David Manley]

GOOD! Means I'm doing my job right... :D

Believe me, that is not a good thing.....

[7eat51]

As far as changing the reloading times, I think I will use it when running certain games in which I want the players to have a feel of history. I would do this in non-con games when folks are not paying to play, unless everyone agreed to it ahead of time. Personally, I would not mind playing the French if I knew we were going to try this, because even though I would be competing against the British on the table, I would be exploring with the British players how such an event could have felt, could have gone, could have been impacted. My enjoyment of a game is not dependent upon winning, but the experience of playing the game with others, so knowing ahead of time I that I am handicapped is not a problem. Even if I had the advantage and could easily destroy the other side, my enjoyment would be minimal if the other players were, shall we say, jerks. Additionally, victory conditions need not always be set as last man standing, if you will, so even if the French are at a firing disadvantage, there still could be ways in which the French could win.

[Nightmoss]

As far as changing the reloading times, I think I will use it when running certain games in which I want the players to have a feel of history. I would do this in non-con games when folks are not paying to play, unless everyone agreed to it ahead of time. Personally, I would not mind playing the French if I knew we were going to try this, because even though I would be competing against the British on the table, I would be exploring with the British players how such an event could have felt, could have gone, could have been impacted. My enjoyment of a game is not dependent upon winning, but the experience of playing the game with others, so knowing ahead of time I that I am handicapped is not a problem. Even if I had the advantage and could easily destroy the other side, my enjoyment would be minimal if the other players were, shall we say, jerks. Additionally, victory conditions need not always be set as last man standing, if you will, so even if the French are at a firing disadvantage, there still could be ways in which the French could win.

I agree with everything you've said, but I still think an average gamer is not going to want to a play a nation that comes with a handicap that almost guarantees a loss (unless the victory conditions are modified accordingly)? I remember what happened in Battletech wihen FASA decided to introduce the Clans. Huge numbers of players bailed to join the Clans because their mechs were superior and fighting against them was almost pointless (at least that's what occurred in my gaming circle). We all just stopped playing. I guess for me it comes down to balance of play in a 'gaming' situation where I prefer that captains make the difference not the ships or game mechanics? Of course we do have captain and crew abilities too? And it will be interesting to see what happens if/when we get the US heavy frigates on the table?

[7eat51]

Exactly, Jim. That's why I am not a fan for broadly applied rules, unless one is engaged in tournament play. I think a given game session is a mix of game mechanics, goals for the game, and players. Depending upon who is at the table, I wouldn't necessarily run the same game the same way. This is why next year, I will ensure we have more thorough descriptions of games at Origins than what I provided this year.

I have seen a similar thing regarding Pathfinder. Some of our friends like gaining treasure and leveling up. Some enjoy role playing, while others just want roll playing. Some enjoy narrative and the propelling of the story. What is interesting is when all of these sit at the same table. It could make a GM's mind spin on trying to create an enjoyable time for everyone, especially when the GM has ideas of his own as well.

[Coog]

I agree with everything you've said, but I still think an average gamer is not going to want to a play a nation that comes with a handicap that almost guarantees a loss (unless the victory conditions are modified accordingly)? I remember what happened in Battletech wihen FASA decided to introduce the Clans. Huge numbers of players bailed to join the Clans because their mechs were superior and fighting against them was almost pointless (at least that's what occurred in my gaming circle). We all just stopped playing. I guess for me it comes down to balance of play in a 'gaming' situation where I prefer that captains make the difference not the ships or game mechanics? Of course we do have captain and crew abilities too? And it will be interesting to see what happens if/when we get the US heavy frigates on the table?

I've played a variety of games where one side is historically inferior to the other and the game reflects it. The sides are balanced by giving the inferior side greater numbers. You might try a British 38 with an upgraded crew go against a French 38/40 and a French 32 with degraded crews. It actually provides a more interesting game than a typical one for one balanced match up. The British player finds himself trying to maneuver to avoid engaging both ships at once while the French player tries to engage with both ships at once, one preferably in a raking position. When we do get the US heavy frigates there will not be a way to match it up equally with another ship.

[David Manley]

You can also be creative with victory conditions. For example an "inferior" side may win by holing out long enough to prevent their opponents achieving a time critical aim, or (if based on a historical scenario) simply by lasting longer than their historical counterparts. Not to everyone's tastes since to some the idea (for example) of losing all your ships or units equals losing the game, but if it took the enemy thre hours of real time to do that and you only needed to hold them off for two to achieve victory then you've won

[7eat51]

When I was younger, I measured winning or losing in terms of units destroyed; now I measure winning or losing in terms of a range of objectives. It has opened up so many types of scenarios that I would not have considered playing when I was younger.

I agree, Jim, that many players would shy away from an apparent lopsided scenario. I wonder, however, if we had the time to describe the nature of the game, and provided victory conditions along the line of David's suggestions, or tactical advice along the line of Bobby's suggestions, if the players would be desirous to take on the challenge. I think I will experiment with our group, most of whom would fit the category of average players, i.e. folks who enjoy games in general, but have little to no experience with wargames.

[Nightmoss]

Some excellent ideas from Bobby and David that could (or should) find their way into the solo campaigns (if not generally in face to face scenarios). Which reminds me that I'm up for the August solo scenario and I really do need to start putting some ideas down on the game table.

As always the ideas and feedback here are exceptional! Thanks for the replies and ideas. :happy:

[fredmiracle]

many historically/simulation minded folks (the traditional demographic of miniature gamers i think) are OK with unbalanced scenarios. People more of a gaming mindset (many of whom might find SoG appealing) may want a more even situation. A reasonable approach at balancing things would simply be to give the French more ships. But I will say that even then, it can be somewhat frustrating (if historically edifying) to suffer through the ineptitude of poor crews

[Diamondback]

Believe me, that is not a good thing.....
OK, I'll admit I lifted the back-half's line from a gun-board buddy of very Chris-esque snarky humor. (Humour? :p )

[csadn]

OK, I'll admit I lifted the back-half's line from a gun-board buddy of very Chris-esque snarky humor. (Humour? :p )

"You may be younger than me. You may be better-looking than me. Hell, you may even be *smarter* than me. But you will *NEVER*, *EVER*, be as Crazy as me."
[Judge Harry Stone, _Night Court_]

And that's why Mr. Manley is nervous, DB.... >:)