PDA

View Full Version : Talking damage



fredmiracle
08-15-2014, 11:00
Having played quite a few games now, I'm interested in reviving earlier conversations about the magnitude and distribution of damage

My first comment is that damage seems to be hugely variable. This means some games will definitely be decided mostly by lucky or unlucky draws, and that if you are very unlucky you can be out of the game in a hurry. I think I'm ok with this, but perhaps it's not ideal. It does seems historically reasonable as far as I can tell.

My second comment is that on average, I feel pretty OK about basic game damage. Maybe it does accrue too fast, but I've seen a number of quite extended battles (e.g. my ~40 turn play-through of the Treasure Galleon scenario)

My third comment/question is about crew kills. In general I think I'm ok with the rate at which this happens. It is an important mechanism for smaller ships to operate against larger ships, and seems historically reasonable. But it remains something to keep an eye on.

My fourth comment is that there seems to be significant problems with advanced game damage:
- For one thing, the velocity of damage simply increases over that of the basic game, since it adds on fires and leaks. This is partially offset by the ability to repair one hull box of damage, but I find the additional damage effects predominate.
- These damages also greatly increase the role of luck. The other day I had an undamaged SOL take ~10 damage chits. This filled 2.5 boxes, but she also drew 3 leaks and a fire, so promptly went down with no chance of recovery. Another time my undamaged frigate had a bad A draw of 3/fire, 3/fire, 2, and was essentially eliminated by 3 long-range chits. This does not feel right historically.
- Another thing I notice is that it's quite rare for a ship to get more than 1-2 sail damage, or to get multiple mast hits. Given that in real battles it was quite common to have the ships nearly unsailable by the end, this seems low.

(I should note that I almost never use C/D, so this is largely referring to A/B/E chits).

One approach I know people have taken to address these issues is to change how damage is handled--by doubling the number of damage chits needed to fill a hull box or crew box, and/or by reducing fire/leak effects. Is anyone still doing this on a regular basis? How has it worked out? (The one thing I *have* been doing is to allow am extinguish-fire action to be planned when no fire is currently burning, against the possibility that a fire starts during the turn)

I know another approach that has been discussed is tweaking the counter distribution. What I'm currently considering for advanced games is this: take a full set of counters, and from a second set of counters add in: all 0, 1, 2, Sail+X, Mast+X and Rudder+X. Might need to add a bit of leniency on mast kills (e.g. if you have 3 masts down but haven't yet done your repair you don't need to surrender or something like that). Has anyone tried anything similar?

Thoughts/discussion?

Diamondback
08-15-2014, 11:24
Question: how much of "Broken Mast" is mast itself and how much is spars and yards? The latter could be replaced at sea and most ships carried a few spares, but a mast you had to go back to port and get a crane or sheer-hulk to do the job. Maybe add a "save draw" about "if X, Y or Z it's only a spar and can be repaired, otherwise the mast itself is broken and irreparable."

I guess... well, what I'm thinking of doing for a drop-in ruleset would realign the damage draws to throw a lot more chits, but would double the burden--net effect a slightly slower rate of damage accrual with a more accurate range of attack possibilities and better differentiation between ships.

csadn
08-15-2014, 13:58
Thoughts/discussion?

No real arguments with any of it -- particularly #1 and #4. I find it almost impossible to replicate the results of actual events using this game; instead of dismasted hulks floating around, most AARs can be titled "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea".

For my part, down in "House Rules", I have a d10-based damage system which seems to provide more-accurate results.

Bluntly: The damage system plays more like a WW2 naval game than AoS.

CPT Andy
10-03-2014, 17:44
Do you have the d10 damage system posted somewhere?
I'd be curious to see how it would compare.

Thanks

csadn
10-09-2014, 17:09
Do you have the d10 damage system posted somewhere?
I'd be curious to see how it would compare.

Thanks

http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?2655-R-F-P-T-*Really*-Simple-Die-Based-Damage-Rules

Reposted entirely here:

1) Roll 1d10; if roll is equal to or lower than firepower value, inflict that many hits on target's hull. At close range, double damage.
2) If enough damage is inflicted to fill a damage box (hits = Burden), inflict a critical hit, based on whatever the unmodified die-roll which caused the critical was:

1 -- Crew; remove one add'l Crew Box.
2 -- Sail; normal effect
3 -- Mast; normal effect
4 -- Rudder; normal effect
5 -- Fire; normal effect
6 -- Leak; normal effect
7+ -- no critical inflicted (the target's in enough trouble already).

If more than one box is crossed off by a single hit, apply multiple instances of the critical (following normal rules for doing so).

Aiming High, or using chain/grape ammo: Apply damage to Crew boxes; ignore any Critical result of 4+.

Raking: Double damage (yes, a close-range rake does *four times* normal damage!).

Musket fire: As for regular damage.

Boarding: Each ship rolls d10s equal to Burden, alternating as per normal rules; damage goes to Crew boxes.

David Manley
10-09-2014, 23:25
Looks like a good system to work with, and pretty simple to work in things like carronades, crew quality and rate of fire, etc.

My only "gripe" (and its more of an observation) is that it gets away from the diceless system that underpins the ethos of the rules. Which is fine and which, if applied elsewhere would make the game far simpler and quicker. But to my mind (which I accept is different to many others, but hey ho) one would be just as well off applying the card manoeuvre system to an existing set of AoS rules (and indeed I did this about 20 years ago, with a card manoeuvre system almost identical to SGN's - although the cards were larger as I was using Airfix frigates - but with a more "traditional" dice based combat and event system, which worked fine. Darn it, should have published it :) )

Diamondback
10-10-2014, 12:31
LOL, life's full of those... like I SHOULDA let that cheerleader jump my bones at the prom. LOL Or I SHOULDA tried to ride my mother harder about making time to go to Physical Therapy after her hysterectomy before going back to the office so she wouldn't devolve as far into Invalid as fast...

Always easier to see the right and wrong plays Monday morning after the Big Game, isn't it? lol

CPT Andy
10-10-2014, 19:04
Thanks for sharing the damage system. I'll have to give it a try.

I have nothing against the chit system, it is pretty clean and simple to track. The game is quick and fun, but I don't know if it captures the historical flavor of the age of sail.

Diamondback
10-10-2014, 20:57
Since we've been discussing development of an "SGN 2.0" ruleset, I'd like to propose a forked approach to damage: two interchangeable Damage Distribution models, Chris's system for the dice-based option and David's for chit-based. My major reservation is that certain weapons and ship types may need modifiers... for example, anything above 32# was not well loved due to extra manpower and time to load despite its extra impact, and a Large 74 with a 24# upper-deck battery could at least on paper be expected to generate more damage than a Middling or Common with 18's on Upper.

But we're talking concepts and boilerplates, not Gory Details and a final product, right?

Kentop
10-11-2014, 20:37
Since we've been discussing development of an "SGN 2.0" ruleset, I'd like to propose a forked approach to damage: two interchangeable Damage Distribution models, Chris's system for the dice-based option and David's for chit-based. My major reservation is that certain weapons and ship types may need modifiers... for example, anything above 32# was not well loved due to extra manpower and time to load despite its extra impact, and a Large 74 with a 24# upper-deck battery could at least on paper be expected to generate more damage than a Middling or Common with 18's on Upper.

But we're talking concepts and boilerplates, not Gory Details and a final product, right?

You surmise too much. anything, above 32 pounders, were not loved by whom? Chit based resolution is flawed because only so many chits available in the game can damage a ship. Once they are used, nobody in their right mind would try to attack knowing that all the damage chits were used. Dice, or better yet, an app, would truly reflect the pure chance inherent in the game. I reiterate chance.

Broadsword56
10-11-2014, 22:01
What about using the chits during play, but returning them to the cup each time and using separate markers for the ship tracks?
That way the probabilities remain the same shot after shot.

csadn
10-12-2014, 16:57
[Site seems to be working, so sneaking in while I have the chance]

As has been noted; The chit-system has other problems -- for ex., one cannot simulate the "one-shot kill" _Victory_ laid on _Bucentaure_ at Trafalgar; in mine, well, if we assume _Victory_ has a full-broadside value of 8, see what a short-range stern-rake rolling max damage inflicts.

As to "not using a diceless system": Pretty-much every game uses dice -- and some games only used chits for the purpose of simulating dice. I think there is a message here re "why reinvent the wheel?".

7eat51
10-12-2014, 22:59
You surmise too much. anything, above 32 pounders, were not loved by whom? Chit based resolution is flawed because only so many chits available in the game can damage a ship. Once they are used, nobody in their right mind would try to attack knowing that all the damage chits were used. Dice, or better yet, an app, would truly reflect the pure chance inherent in the game. I reiterate chance.

I use several sets of chits, replacing them after each round. I use laminated logs, so recording the damage is quite easy. Similarly, I use four "A" damage decks in WoG, but without replacement. With WoG, one does not draw the number of damage markers each round.

David Manley
10-12-2014, 23:39
[Site seems to be working, so sneaking in while I have the chance]

As has been noted; The chit-system has other problems -- for ex., one cannot simulate the "one-shot kill" _Victory_ laid on _Bucentaure_ at Trafalgar; in mine, well, if we assume _Victory_ has a full-broadside value of 8, see what a short-range stern-rake rolling max damage inflicts.

As to "not using a diceless system": Pretty-much every game uses dice -- and some games only used chits for the purpose of simulating dice. I think there is a message here re "why reinvent the wheel?".

The "one shot kill" thing is an issue with the combat resolution system rather than chit drawng. It would be pretty easy to introduce a FLoB style "shock and awe" test when very heavy damage is caused (e.g. where damage caused from a single shot is equal to or greater than some multiple of the target's burden an immediate strike test is made)

SGN only uses chits to represent dice, just like it uses cards to represent order writing in other rules. For this type of game I'd personally prefer cards for movement (although adding some random dice-based factor for some elements such as missing stays) and dice for just about everything that chits are used for. But it is what it is.