No Points Matches?

[Beowulf03809]

I may be wrong ( :hmmm: ) but I thought I read somewhere that there will not be point values for ships/upgrades/etc. in SoG.

If that's correct how do you manage quick pickup games? If everything is more scenario based, what if you don't have the exact ship types described in the scenario or you want to try out options of different ships or nations?

I'm sure if I came from a WoG background this would be more clear for me but I'm feeling a bit at a loss of information.
:question:

[7eat51]

1. Keep in mind that rules are not written in stone; hence, the advent of house rules, which I am sure we'll see plenty of given the varying interests of Anchorage members.

2. If no official point system is provided, I am sure this community will develop one.

3. You will probably see the development of different ship cards on this site, and if you desire certain ones, ask and it will probably be given.

4. The purpose is to have fun, so allow your imagination to guide you. Don't constrain yourself with the physical items you have.

If you spend some time reading through posts on the Aerodrome, you will see how this community will probably work once the game is up-and-running. Folks are gracious with their knowledge and skills. Questions are always welcomed. Files are generated with all types of game helps. Newbies are welcomed regardless of their level of knowledge or ignorance. Case in point, I am playing in a solo campaign with folks who outshine me unbelievably in terms of knowledge and experience with WWI aviation and the game. They have graciously welcomed me, encouraged me, and are teaching me - same with a recent scramble my wife and I attended.

So Lawrence, whenever you have a question, ask.

[Sea Gull]

I may be wrong ( :hmmm: ) but I thought I read somewhere that there will not be point values for ships/upgrades/etc. in SoG.

If that's correct how do you manage quick pickup games? If everything is more scenario based, what if you don't have the exact ship types described in the scenario or you want to try out options of different ships or nations?

I'm sure if I came from a WoG background this would be more clear for me but I'm feeling a bit at a loss of information.
:question:

If you don't have the required ships, go with what you have. :happy:

You have a frigate. Your opponent a 2nd Rate. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make sure he doesn't catch you. :steer: Because if he does ... :cry::surrender:

Once you've had your ship turned into kindling, swap sides and see if he can last longer than you did in the same situation. :cannonboom::sly:

[7eat51]

Chris brings up a good point - don't think of scenarios in terms of last-man-standing fighting. Sometimes the objectives could encourage avoiding fights, etc. This is where victory conditions can "equalize" uneven forces.

[The Royal Hajj]

There will be an official point system added to the game at a later date, in some type of expansion pack.

[David Manley]

I wrote a points system for my age of sail rules but I've never met a player who used it :)

I have been discussing the WGF points system with Andrea because of a need to have something like that for anational tournament system. a SOG equiva;ent would be just as useful, in time.

[7eat51]

a need to have something like that for anational tournament system

This is where I see a point system as especially useful. One thing I would suggest is a way to compensate for different victory conditions based on differences in point levels. For example, person A has 100 points, and person B has 150. Victory conditions can be weighted in such a way that person B has a greater burden, or different victory conditions such as marginal victory to decisive victory. This way, scenarios don't have to be equal in the sense of forces. This would open the door to a greater breadth of scenario options. As discussed in another thread, unequal situations can be interesting and fun to play, as long as both sides have been given the opportunity to accomplish something of note.

[Diamondback]

I remember a scenario for A&A War at Sea I was working on once, based on a now-deceased friend's article on HMS Glowworm's demise.

Basically you had ONE British destroyer against THREE Germans and a Heavy Cruiser (Admiral Hipper), and I had player choice of three objectives:
- 1. Run the gauntlet, successfully exit Glowworm out the west edge of the map to get back into radio range of the fleet.
- 2. Destroy or cripple Admiral Hipper. (This was the outcome her captain chose to go for IRL, and while he and many of his crew paid with their lives their ramming attack put the Hipper out of the war for a big chunk of a year.)

Each player took a turn commanding each force, and whoever scored the most "points" between damage inflicted to the Germans and/or escaping the trap won.

[Ship's Cat]

I play point-based wargames, but I'm not at all convinced that a point system will work well for SoG. Not that I've played the game, but it seems to me that the wind direction, position relative to terrain, and relative starting positions of the ships could have a significant effect on the outcome.

If both players know the game reasonably well, the "I cut you choose" technique will probably balance things better than any point system.

[Berthier]

Points system (universal naval Napoleonic)

For any ship of a particular rating
British ship = 1.5x French ship
2.0xSpanish ship
1.0xUS ship
2.5x Austrian/Prussian ship
1.5 Russian ship
2.0xTurkish ship
1.5xSwedish
1.5xDutch
1.5xDanish

Simple! You can use the same system to work out other nationalities, thus Spanish=Turkish of same ship type. In play you thus need 3 Fr 74's to 2 British 74's for an equal battle etc

For upgunned ships mutliply the values by 1.2, for US frigates by1.2

Note: Not to be taken too seriously

[Beowulf03809]

I play point-based wargames, but I'm not at all convinced that a point system will work well for SoG. Not that I've played the game, but it seems to me that the wind direction, position relative to terrain, and relative starting positions of the ships could have a significant effect on the outcome.

If both players know the game reasonably well, the "I cut you choose" technique will probably balance things better than any point system.

I agree with many points raised above but this one summed things well. I find scenario / objective based play FAR more enjoyable in almost all situations vs. 'last man standing' games or even games where the only victory points come from damage inflicted. This is why I'm looking forward to merchant ships as well (though in the short run some from another scale or even printable ones would stand in ok) since they would add even more options for scenarios.

I also find 'secret objectives' to be very nice in many cases since often one side didn't know exactly what the other was about, and if you are not sure what your opponent's goal is it can be much harder to try to block it. In the example above, if the German player knew the selected goal was to damage the Hipper he could try to protect her, but if he thought perhaps they were just going to try to rush the Glowworm off the board then they may expose the heavy cruiser to greater risk. I have played some games over the years where there is a chart of perhaps 6 possible objectives for each side in mission and the player rolls in secret and marks it before the game.

The selection of starting point with regard to favorable winds is absolutely a good one. I hadn't considered that since I haven't played an AoS game for an eternity. I do know that in the games I do play the selection of the most favorable spot for yourself (or giving your opponent the least favorable starting location for their own forces) can be one of the most critical factors of the game and based on the table and scenario could account for a 25% difference in 'point value'. I can see wind as being even more critical here as taking away or limiting the ability of your opponent to maneuver could cripple them.

One issue with historic scenarios is they are often not very balanced. Historically a smart leader would try to maximize their advantage from the start. For example I've been reading up on the histories of many of the ships in Wave 1 and the Exclusives. I often found a particular ship would be credited in the capture of an enemy ship but the odds may read as two frigates from Side A fought against a single frigate from Side B and captured/sunk her. It sometimes mentions that the captured/sunk ship was escorting (again back to the merchant ships) but not always. This style action would form an interesting scenario but would have to be well thought out since the player from the under-sized side is going to have a harder time and may feel some despair right from the start.

I think points is important for tournaments and simple pick up games at the store, but also to give some flexibility to a scenario in case it calls for particular ship classes that you may not have or want to try out different options.

Just as a final note to my rambling...I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the rules and starting with some scenario designs!! It's a very fun extension of the hobby IMO.

[7eat51]

DB's A&A scenario is a good example of multiple objectives. I remember AH games from times past that were structured thusly. Though being much younger at the time, we often ignored them and went last man standing. No longer interested in such battles.

Daniel's point system would simplify things quite a bit. I think it would be beneficial to provide some rationale for the numbers, but it would preclude trying to give points to each individual ship. Any point designation would be somewhat subjective, especially given the generic combat system - e.g. same firing arcs and distances, etc. This is a good tradeoff, IMHO, between playability and realism.

Lawrence's suggestion of secret objectives could work easily if there is a third party creating scenarios. This opens some interesting possibilities for us here, especially given Skype and other means of communicating with each other, not to mention someone creating scenarios for another here and PMing the secret objectives to each player. I also like the die of a chart.

I wish we had the full compliment of rules at hand. I think we'll see many good scenarios and ideas developed here.

[The Royal Hajj]

For secret missions, I think a good way to do that would be to start with designing the layout for the game table. Then think of different objectives that could be played on that table design for both sides. Write them out on cards and let each side randomly draw one or two objectives. As long as you have 3 or 4 per side, that would keep the other side guessing what as to what each other is doing, but still give them a little bit of a hint as to what might be going on (as in real life they tended to have some notion as to what was happening). You could also go have several "Spawn" points mapped out for that table setup. Then have each side randomly draw a spawn location card. This way the wind direction is decided by mother nature :steer:. By playing the same mission with different starting points and objectives, the entire feel of the same "game" changes quite a bit.

At least, that is how I'd build missions. A standardized version like this would make it easy for anyone to play them, with whatever ships they have.

[Diamondback]

The example above also was in a fjord, so the direction you turned made your intentions obvious--there was some luck in it about WHEN you found out Jerry was there, historically it was so foggy Captain Roope didn't know until they were eyes-on on Hipper and made the choice to sell his life and his men's as dearly as he could after a German destroyer falsely identified as Norwegian.

False-flag traps happened in the Age of Sail too--I've read plenty of cases of the RN firing first shot WELL before hoisting colors.

[csadn]

Chris brings up a good point - don't think of scenarios in terms of last-man-standing fighting. Sometimes the objectives could encourage avoiding fights, etc. This is where victory conditions can "equalize" uneven forces.

Historical Example: Battle of Valcour Island, 1776 -- the US forces lost every ship they had, but still won the battle because they had delayed the British long enough to preclude them attacking further south by land that year. And when the British attacked in 1777 -- one word: "Saratoga". >:)

(Oh, by the way: The genius US commander responsible for this victory? Some guy named Benedict Arnold.... >;) )

The point here is: Even if there is a "points system", one can still run "unbalanced matches" -- if I have 100 points, and you have 50, that's one thing; there's a world of difference between "I kill all 50 points of yours and lost only 5 points of mine", and "I kill all 50 of yours, but lose 50 points of mine".

[Devsdoc]

To start with you could have the wind blowing from the let say the North and the two fleets/ships etc, start lines being East and West. That way no side has the upper hand. This is only as a starter when you are new to windy games
Be safe
Rory

[Berthier]

Many games involving point structures analyze the units based on firepower, armour (for ships hull strength), manouvre ability, manpower, crew skill. The "non serious" suggestion I made above were to give the simplest system I could think of where the main factor differentiating ships was the crew skill/performance. Thus two British 74's could reasonably be expected to take on 3 French 74's and have a good chance of an equitable battle. Therfe are so many factors that could change this. For instance, a ship that has been at sea for long periods, say on blockade duty, will have a dirty hull that will slow it's speed and make it less responsive to the helm, it's crew may be showing sign of increased illness, there may be ongoing leaks in the hull requiring constant maintenance etc etc. Thus we would need to "factor" these issues into a final scenario and modify the base ratio of points strengths. Secondly the point strengths ratio only work with like-like, ie 74 vs 74, the ratio system would not transfer to a 74 vs three 44's say.

Any system can be made as simple or complex as the players prefer, there could be a cut down (razzee!) version for beginners with added complexity available by player choice. SO you might have base point scores for ships, an addtional module of modifier scores for ship condition, crew condition/skill etc

[7eat51]

From my, albeit limited, experience with WoG, if the system becomes complex, the only people who will use it are hard-core gamers. Such folks can probably develop their own system based on factors they deem important. For social gamers, the system has to be easy to manage, and, thereby, staying true with the game's ethos. Everyone we've introduced WoG to has enjoyed the game, in part, due to its simplicity. I spent a few minutes teaching, and we were off playing. I realize that I can deal with complex point systems in creating scenarios for them, and they need not know how it was done. However, I am hoping that they, too, will buy the game to play when I am not available. I would like, therefore, for them to have a simple system for scenario generation. My suggestion, therefore, is two streams in this conversation: a point system for beer and pretzel players, and a point system for historically accurate players, keeping these two conversations distinct.

[Diamondback]

Also, for a scenario, you might look up one for WaS over on Forumini called "Merchant, Pirate, Sailor, Spy". It might be readily adapted to tis setting and game system...

[Berthier]

Example of points system from Warhammer Trafalgar
British / French
1st rate 325/300
2nd rate 275/
3rd rate 225/200
3rd small 200/175
4th rate 150
Lge merchant 145
5th rate 125/125

Lots of extra points for things like boarding nets +10, bow chasers +15, overgunned +45, sturdy construction +15 etc etc
6th rate 110

[David Manley]

the points system was one of the better things about those rules :)

[Devsdoc]

the points system was one of the better things about those rules :)
Yes David,
Your right, But A man I have heared of did some "House Rules" for "Trafalgar" which made it a lot better to play:hmmm:. Thank you:salute:
Be safe
Rory

[Diamondback]

From my, albeit limited, experience with WoG, if the system becomes complex, the only people who will use it are hard-core gamers. Such folks can probably develop their own system based on factors they deem important. For social gamers, the system has to be easy to manage, and, thereby, staying true with the game's ethos. Everyone we've introduced WoG to has enjoyed the game, in part, due to its simplicity. I spent a few minutes teaching, and we were off playing. I realize that I can deal with complex point systems in creating scenarios for them, and they need not know how it was done. However, I am hoping that they, too, will buy the game to play when I am not available. I would like, therefore, for them to have a simple system for scenario generation. My suggestion, therefore, is two streams in this conversation: a point system for beer and pretzel players, and a point system for historically accurate players, keeping these two conversations distinct.
This was one of the good points about War at Sea: a simple "basic" system that you could almost effortlessly drop user-created add-ons and extensions like Order of Battle force-composition restrictions or advanced aircraft management onto but was still playable on its own. It was surprising how easy creating custom cards for sisters of existing ships was...

So, I guess you could say I'm a fan of the tested and proven Ares "Basic Game/Advanced Rules by player choice" model, plus the addition of "player-developed add-ons" like WoG. To me, a good designer tries to give you (and himself for later expansions) a solid foundation to build on, rather than having an ironclad "this is the entire game universe, take it or leave it" attitude.

[7eat51]

This was one of the good points about War at Sea

The AH sister game to Victory in the Pacific?

If so, I would very much like to see any add-ons you might have.

I always enjoyed these games - rather simple and fun.

[Diamondback]

Eric, I was thinking the Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures line. :o

[7eat51]

Eric, I was thinking the Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures line. :o

Thanks.

I remember making the choice not to enter that gaming system. At times, I feel a bit overwhelmed with the different number of games I have. I think the decision to refrain on A&A naval minis was the right one. Besides, I think I gravitate more toward the type of tactics that are present with Age-of-Sail or earlier.

[Sea Gull]

Thanks.

I remember making the choice not to enter that gaming system. At times, I feel a bit overwhelmed with the different number of games I have. I think the decision to refrain on A&A naval minis was the right one. Besides, I think I gravitate more toward the type of tactics that are present with Age-of-Sail or earlier.

I got the ships, couldn't be bothered with the game. Seems I'm a sucker for ready made and ready painted anything. :dazed: As usual I have different rules to use with the models, in this case targets for anti-shipping strikes. :happy:

[Cmmdre]

Thanks.

I remember making the choice not to enter that gaming system. At times, I feel a bit overwhelmed with the different number of games I have. I think the decision to refrain on A&A naval minis was the right one. Besides, I think I gravitate more toward the type of tactics that are present with Age-of-Sail or earlier.

I'm with Eric on this one. I too resisted going the A&A route. Both over whelming and financial decision on my part. I love age of sail style games. Something about the romance of the sea during wind powered travel.

[Angiolillo]

Here a point system:

http://www.aresgames.eu/11116

[Gunner]

Glad to see that the two specials and Spanish are included.:beer:

[Bligh]

Thanks Andrea.
This will be very useful.
Rob.

[Union Jack]

+1 just downloaded the list, very comprehensive and look fair. Must try it out though.

Neil


Thanks Andrea.
This will be very useful.
Rob.