What is Eariest Setting and Year Possible for SoG

[Mabinogian]

I`ve thought long and hard where and when I want to place my forthcoming SoG campaign.

My personal ideal world setting is the American War of Independence: with Colonist Rebels running the British blockades, and French fleets trying to aid their allies against the British (and some linked Caribbean adventures thrown in for good measure) However, I defer to the advice from veterans of the game system. Can the SoG rules handle this time frame?

I am still waiting for everything I have ordered for SoG to arrive in the post, and so I am unsure just how versatile the rules are?

Thank you in advance,

Steve :)

[Mabinogian]

Actually, thinking about it.... a far easier way of asking the question is: What is the earliest year that the Sails of Glory rules can handle?

As I`m seeing SoG ship models built circa 1760, I`m assuming the rules would work for that time scale as well?????

[TexaS]

The rules themselves are good for 1600:s I would say.
It's more a question of stats for the earlier ships. AWI is well in the scope as long as you have ships and their stats for the fights.

[Mabinogian]

Thanks for that TexaS, this helps me no end, and at the same time, somewhat encourages me too.

I think I am envisaging a sort of semi `Imagi-Nation` theme set firmly within a historical context (another Ruritania perhaps?). However, I`ve not spied anything along those lines being done by the good gentlemen playing SoG, and I have a feeling I may end up the first (maybe the only one).... but that's fine too, as I am somewhat of a solo gamer (by choice) even at the best of times.

Thank you for the reply TexaS, I really needed that. I was confused because the rules and Ares themselves state the game is Napoleonic, and yet I have heard SoG described in a few places as being set between 1650 and 1815; so the clarification was very helpful to me.

[David Manley]

Anglo Dutch would work ok, at a pinch you could push it back to the 1580s and cover some aspects of the Armada, although the lack of official rules for oared ships is a problem (but then it is right through to the 1800s)

[Mabinogian]

Hi David, yes I have my eye on the Anglo Dutch Wars as a very possible topic I`d maybe like to cover at some stage. The scope of this great game opens up to me more and more every day. Excellent stuff.

[Union Jack]

As long as you have the models, can work out the data for the ship cards (although if it solely you own campaign this shouldn't matter that much and you can always amend as the campaign progresses or information becomes available), I would say anything goes. I can imagine Bolitho and the sloops in the AWI setting.

Best of luck, fair winds.

[Mabinogian]

Oh absolutely Union Jack, one of the things I love best of all, especially with my solo endeavours, is `tinkering` to make things work for me, me and me. Free from the fetters of opponent restraint, it`s amazing what you can achieve alone ^^

http://shiftymushrooms.weebly.com/getting-the-most-out-of-solo-wargaming.html <---- one I made earlier :wink:

[Kentop]

Probably the earliest date you could get away with using SOG rules and ships is about 1650. You could easily do a "battle of Bantry Bay" circa 1689. The war of 1812 is the far limit on the other end of the spectrum. By 1850 it was all about steam power. The earliest ship Ares makes is the HMS Britannia (1762), a first rate, Royal George class ship of the line with 100 guns. The battle of Bantry Bay ships had sixth rate, 24 gun ships, through third rate 60 to 70 gun ships of the line and pretty much everything in between. The HMS Cambridge (1666), was a 70 gun third rate and was present at that battle. Those classes of ships are well represented by SOG ships. Anything earlier than that, and you're talking galleys, which means oar driven ships as David said previously.

[Kentop]

http://shiftymushrooms.weebly.com/getting-the-most-out-of-solo-wargaming.html <---- one I made earlier :wink:

A great read! Everybody here should read it. You took me right back to those days. So, when somebody says, "Dr. Who" you see a picture of William Hartnell in your mind, right? I'm surprised that you did not mention Gerry Anderson. Truly an enjoyable article. Thanks for sharing.

[Bligh]

Oh! Nostalgia for a bygone age Stephen.
I remember it as twer yesterday, only in my case it was Charles grant who was the catalyst.
Thanks for that.
Rob.

[Kentop]

Stupid boring history lesson coming up: It was somewhere around 1650 that Charles II regained the throne in England. Cromwell screwed up badly enough that the english people literally begged for a return of the monarchy. British navy ships during his period didn't carry the HMS title when he was king. They used HBMS, meaning, His Britannic Majesty's Ship. So, ships from this period, like HMS Britannia, were called HBMS Britannia in their day. You there in the back row, WAKE UP. Straight to the Principal with you, young man.

[Mabinogian]

Kentop said: {{“You could easily do a "battle of Bantry Bay"}}

*grins*

Interestingly, I live at bantry. There is a ruddy great French anchor from one of the sunk ships sitting slap bang square in the middle of the Friday market square. There were two major attacks in Bantry, one was a when a Spanish Galleon from the Armada blew off course and found safety in Bantry Bay (the deepest natural harbour in this hemisphere, incidentally) and the crew took Bantry prisoner while they tried desperately to fix their damaged ship. When it became clear they couldn`t make her seaworthy, the captain and crew surrendered. They became temporary prisoners, ended up working the roads and walls, helping fishermen with the nets... and eventually (having conducted themselves so well) were released. Some of the Spaniards decided to stay, settled, and married local woman. Hence why you find some very unusual surnames in Bantry, even today.

The second `threat` was much later in history, from the French during the Napoleonic wars. The anchor sitting in the middle of Bantry is testimony to French intrusion into these waters.

.... and cheers everyone. I`m so glad you enjoyed reading bits from my site. I actually own several websites and blogs, but didn`t think it proper to promote them here. The link I gave just seemed relevant to the chat was all.

Kentop, interesting snippet again. We have a place called Cromwells Bridge not far from my home. Its supposed to have gotten its name dating back to Cromwell. One of my favourite wargame periods is ECW.

17555

[Herkybird]

Stupid boring history lesson coming up: It was somewhere around 1650 that Charles II regained the throne in England. Cromwell screwed up badly enough that the english people literally begged for a return of the monarchy. British navy ships during his period didn't carry the HMS title when he was king. They used HBMS, meaning, His Britannic Majesty's Ship. So, ships from this period, like HMS Britannia, were called HBMS Britannia in their day. You there in the back row, WAKE UP. Straight to the Principal with you, young man.

The restoration of Charles the second was on May 29th 1660.

Cromwell IMHO did not 'Screw up', he had laudable aims for a fair and balanced society, but was unable to impress his vision on his peers, let alone, 'the' Peers!
England was (again IMHO) - at that time unable to operate without a strong central figurehead, there were too many factions in government and society post civil war.

I think its true that England liked having a Monarch. Richard Cromwell was well aware he had not the same political and Military experience as his father, and effectively conspired with both former Royalists and Parliamentarians to effect the restoration.
It is certain that the civil war/ Commonwealth period made people less happy with an absolute monarchy, which has served us well ever since.

Feel free to disagree though!!!! :drinks:

[Mabinogian]

The restoration of Charles the second was on May 29th 1660.

Cromwell IMHO did not 'Screw up', he had laudable aims for a fair and balanced society, but was unable to impress his vision on his peers, let alone, 'the' Peers!
England was (again IMHO) - at that time unable to operate without a strong central figurehead, there were too many factions in government and society post civil war.

I think its true that England liked having a Monarch. Richard Cromwell was well aware he had not the same political and Military experience as his father, and effectively conspired with both former Royalists and Parliamentarians to effect the restoration.
It is certain that the civil war/ Commonwealth period made people less happy with an absolute monarchy, which has served us well ever since.

Feel free to disagree though!!!! :drinks:


I totally agree with all you just said. Nice rounded and well informed observations.

[Bligh]

I also agree with Stephen. Cromwell was just what we needed at the time. It was just a pity that the two Parliaments which he had to work with were self seeking, petty fogging, argumentative, and lackluster, with little vision, or the ability to put the past behind them and work together for the betterment of the Nation as a whole.
(This is in no way intended as a religious nor a political statement!):happy:
Rob.

[Mabinogian]

Ditto... a good historical discussion among mates, preferably over a good pint of real beer, while sitting comfortably in the inglenook amidst mists of rum scented pipe tobacco smoke, is conducive to my idea of a wonderful afternoon.... just before we get down to the serious stuff of wargaming at the club.