PDA

View Full Version : Statistics spreadsheet updated for Wave1 reprint



fredmiracle
02-16-2015, 16:07
I was hoping I'd have V&C stats to put in too, but I will refresh it again when they finally turn up...

http://sailsofglory.org/downloads.php?do=file&id=31

Nightmoss
02-16-2015, 19:25
I was hoping I'd have V&C stats to put in too, but I will refresh it again when they finally turn up...

http://sailsofglory.org/downloads.php?do=file&id=31

Thank you! :thumbsup:

7eat51
02-17-2015, 07:56
Very helpful, indeed. Thank you.

Naharaht
02-18-2015, 20:25
I have experienced a problem trying to download this spreadsheet because apparently I have an "invalid security token". Has anyone else experienced this, please?

Nightmoss
02-18-2015, 23:24
I have experienced a problem trying to download this spreadsheet because apparently I have an "invalid security token". Has anyone else experienced this, please?

Not I.

Gunner
02-19-2015, 01:48
There are some I can't open but, that's not one of them.

7eat51
02-19-2015, 10:20
I have experienced a problem trying to download this spreadsheet because apparently I have an "invalid security token". Has anyone else experienced this, please?

I'll ask Keith about this. Sometimes, things are a matter of clearing cache/cookies.

Mycenius
02-27-2015, 15:27
Excellent!

:salute:

A related question - spreadsheet lines 42 & 43 (Dryade and HMS Sybille) - with the points system how come HMS Sybille is rated 2 points less than Dryade (85 vs. 87) when the British vessel is superior (significantly better gunnery stats and everything else identical)? I haven't looked at the proposed points system at all but just picked that up in passing when perusing the spreadsheet...

fredmiracle
02-27-2015, 15:50
Excellent!

:salute:

A related question - spreadsheet lines 42 & 43 (Dryade and HMS Sybille) - with the points system how come HMS Sybille is rated 2 points less than Dryade (85 vs. 87) when the British vessel is superior (significantly better gunnery stats and everything else identical)? I haven't looked at the proposed points system at all but just picked that up in passing when perusing the spreadsheet...

Yes Ares did make a few mistakes. Here were some thoughts I had in a PM a while back:



Regarding the official SGN costing:

There are two head-slapping mistakes--HMS Queen Charlotte and HMS Sybille. They are off by a big margin, perhaps 10 points or so, and presumably represent typos.

Then there are a couple more ships which are "wrong," but within fairly small margins.
- Imperial is costed two points higher than Orient, despite having one less gunnery factor, and one more musketry factor. Probably Imperial should be either 206 or 207
- HMS Amelia is clearly a few points too high, since it should come in at or below Dryade, probably 86

Beyond those, as far as I can see, the ships seem to be sequenced correctly by cost within each class, so it becomes more a question of judgement calls, rather than clear-cut error. One can quibble over whether a small difference in stats should merit a difference in cost (Bellerophon and Bellona, for instance, at the same cost despite a couple of differences in musketry). But the variance shouldn't be be more than a point or possibly two.

Mycenius
02-27-2015, 16:22
Yes Ares did make a few mistakes. Here were some thoughts I had in a PM a while back:


Regarding the official SGN costing:

There are two head-slapping mistakes--HMS Queen Charlotte and HMS Sybille. They are off by a big margin, perhaps 10 points or so, and presumably represent typos.

Then there are a couple more ships which are "wrong," but within fairly small margins.
- Imperial is costed two points higher than Orient, despite having one less gunnery factor, and one more musketry factor. Probably Imperial should be either 206 or 207
- HMS Amelia is clearly a few points too high, since it should come in at or below Dryade, probably 86

Beyond those, as far as I can see, the ships seem to be sequenced correctly by cost within each class, so it becomes more a question of judgement calls, rather than clear-cut error. One can quibble over whether a small difference in stats should merit a difference in cost (Bellerophon and Bellona, for instance, at the same cost despite a couple of differences in musketry). But the variance shouldn't be be more than a point or possibly two.

Cheers Fred! :beer:

Diamondback
02-28-2015, 00:06
Fred, have you written to Andrea or Roberto about the point discrepancies, or would you like me to Get The Clue-Bat?

fredmiracle
02-28-2015, 00:13
Fred, have you written to Andrea or Roberto about the point discrepancies, or would you like me to Get The Clue-Bat?

I thought about posting something on BGG (which they seem to read) but I never got around to it. It would make sense for you to pass along the word directly, especially if they are about to put out an update. I don't suppose they need to be battered by it, but perhaps a friendly nudge will be in order :wink:

Amara
04-17-2015, 17:51
The spreadsheet has external links to another file that I don't have. Where do I find it?

fredmiracle
04-17-2015, 21:31
The spreadsheet has external links to another file that I don't have. Where do I find it?

Is that using openoffice? Sadly it's formulas aren't compatible with xl so I've seen it generate that error...