I would only be interested in blue ones, plain or with shades. The terrain packs should provide all you'll need for 2D coastlines.
Printable View
I would only be interested in blue ones, plain or with shades. The terrain packs should provide all you'll need for 2D coastlines.
But could be good in terms of a campaign. Then it could also turn into a scenario. Remeber the Hornblower book where the ship sails into the harbour to destroy the four Frrench ships that are laid up awaiting repairs or supplies. A nice scenario based on that has the potential to be very challenging and interesting if done right.
At the tactical level, I don't believe the time scale of a game would include repair/refit.
For a scenario, absolutely. That sounds like a good one. Like I said, having ports as places for activity is great. One player can be trying to get as much of his fleet into port as possible before a certain turn, or a French player can be trying to break out of an English blockade, etc. Or some ships can be in port for repairs and able to make sail at the end of certain turns and the opposing player needs to come in, damage as much of the ships as possible and escape with his raiders. All that I think are great tactical missions that can be played out around ports.
And if you are playing out a campaign then any ships you get into port can be repaired, etc. over the course of whatever campaign time scale exists.
But the though of playing a tactical game where if a player can dock their ship and leave it docked to repair one damage box per turn, for example, just seems too 'video game' and not very realistic. Some repairs are tried to be made at sea in the heat of battle but that's a different scope than what you would do at a dock and fit within the time frame of a couple hours of in-game time for a battle.
Just my preferences. Others would find port 'repair stations' to be a fun addition to the game.
I agree Lawrenece. Repairs during a game would be aa simple case of cutting away a fallen mast and maybe lashing together some sort of temporary replacement. I guess that's something that could be handled withhouse rules if not already included in the main rules.
Since we're talking about a relatively small number of ships in the intial release I don't see many people jumping into the large fleet scale actions, unless they use their existing 1/1200th scale stuff. Yet even then I always find a campaign supporting the battles offers the best experience. Turn and run away may lose the battle, but could also win the war. Once I'm comfortable with the rules I imagine most of the battles I have will be part of a campaign.
Some of my favorite Flames of War games have been with the Firestorm: Market Garden campaign. I've seen some nice mentions here on another thread about a strategic level view of the Napoleonic naval theater that used block markers to show 'something is there' and using off-board tracking of actual ships. That's near-perfect IMO. When two 'blocks' are close enough to attempt to engage you move to the tactical level, break out your ships, spread your mat and play the game. If any of your ships survive and you want to get them repaired you start moving them toward a friendly port at the strategic level. If they are intercepted before they get there then your next game with them should start those ships in mostly the same state (accounting for whatever at-sea repairs are possible).
I guess I've always been bugged by what seems to me to be the inappropriate application of the term 'strategic'. In my view strategic is the 'big picture' and is reflected better in games that deal with a very abstract view of units (squadrons, companies, task forces, etc.). Battles between forces at this level is likewise abstracted. Tactical deals with the actual battles. This can be at small formation scale (FoW for example is individual vehicles but platoon scale infantry) down to individual models. Strategic games represent weeks, months or even years of time. Tactical games simulate usually just a few hours. Although I enjoy playing them, I always balk when I hear "Real Time Strategy" game...Real Time Tactical is more like it.
/soapbox off
Preach it, brother! One of my big beefs that has come about with the widespread acceptance of 28mm (and heroic) as the main minis scale is that you lose the ability to play a full strategic area (even the smallest strategic scale such as a large battle as in 'battle of cambrai' or 'battle of the bulge.' Many games rightfully acknowledge the systems as 'skirmish' level, but they still do this one thing that irks me... range. Why bother going to the trouble of producing men to scale with scale weapons, scale terrain, scale vehicles etc. then having them shoot 50 scale ft with a machine gun. You pretty much have to go to 2mm scale to get to use realistic ranges if you are including any vehicle mounted guns. Even at Napoleonic land war ranges, you need 10mm or less if you want to show more than a couple of units or if you want full use of artillery.
The point is, if you are not using scale range, then the men are no longer actual men (as they are billed), they are elaborate abstract markers that take up waaaaayy to much space for their actual size.
Man your post really set me off. I think I need to relax.
I should point out that Ares does a pretty good job of this with WoW, which is one of the things I like, but that the problem really only shows up in these games where you are supposedly representing each individual soldier (and they have individual weapons) and represent their particular health, damage, whatever in a separate way (usually with dice).
One way I have explained it to friends is the rank of the decision makers. Strategic = higher ranks. If we're discussing what a general would think about, we're probably talking strategic; if we're discussing what a sergeant would think about, we're probably talking tactical. If we're discussing what a politician would think about, we're probably talking fantasy.
Oh my. Fun and games. Tactical is individuals, fire teams, squads up to company; up to rank captain O-3. First person shooters are not really tactical, they are individuals who have to train to operate in a tactical environment. Logistics are simple, what you have is what you have. Maintenance is usually direct exchange with command or dumped as a combat loss. Medical aid usually consists of being taught to yell "Medic!".
Operations - a field of battle; battalions up to corps. This covers most historical battles. Rank will vary based on the size of the forces involved. Logistics get difficult, you have to deliver the material needed to fight, survive and continue to the troops and supports. Maintenance will be provided or gear will be dumped. Medical aid is variable based on the size of the force, but medical aid would be provided or expect 40% losses to disease much less enemy action.
Strategic is continental or larger scale control. Nato, warsaw pact would be examples. Logistics on this scale involve not only delivery of the goods needed for war, but the production of the same. Maintenance is now at depot level and not only takes in repairs but complete rebuilds. Medical aid now consists of providing for the medical support at all levels, training of replacements, and treatment centers away from the field for rest recovery and burial.
What most computer games refer to as strategic is no such thing.
Tactical: What is within line-of-sight.
Strategic: Everything else.
:)
Outside of looks, why a coastline? The edge of the board is basically a coastline and it doesn't take any space away from the ocean.
Coastlines that penetrate into the board create a variable edge, where the boards themselves will be square. The variation itself adds some tactical differences. Personally though I'd rather see open water mats and various coastal 'terrain' options since not all games will be played within that close range of land and when they are I'd rather it not be the same coast every time.
The more I think about mats, the more I desire plain water, possibly with different shades to represent different depths when desired. Given that the ships are on the same plane as the mats, any type of land mass will always affect game play. This is significantly different from the game mats for WoG where the airplanes are not flying at the same level as the ground, so whatever is on the ground need not impact gameplay. The only land mass I can think of that I might want is a river with land on both sides. Such a mat might require too much in terms of terrain tiles to do effectively, but without having seen such tiles, it is hard to judge.
I really hope the KS mats will be plain. I think that is the best way for Ares to start - most universal.
I would think that a map that clearly represents open water would be best. I will be fairly easy to cut/build/make a scratch build coastlines if the terrain sets from the KS don't do the trick. I can always ADD additional detail if I want it, but I can never REMOVE a printed coastline on the map if I don't want it.
I'd like to see a paint scheme that matches the ocean artwork on the ship card that sits on the base.
The listing hulks of the dashed foe. The flotsam of a once great empire. Driftwood with HMS partially visible over rotted wood (symbolic, eh?) Take your pick. I know I will! :sly:
Thanks, Keith, for posting pics the SoG mat alongside the WoG coastal mat. I was wondering how they would look together. I think with WoG, it won't be much of a problem once the game begins. From my experience, after the first move folks are usually paying attention to maneuvers and aircraft position, so the mat differences would probably not be noticed that much. I can see this set up being used for BoB scenarios quite easily.
For BoB, Mediterranean and many costal Europe scenarios. :g&t:
Here is the Aerodrome thread:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...s-of-Glory-mat
Anything printed on a mat is there permanently. I agree that islands, coastlines, flotsam etc. need to be moveable so should be on overlays or models.
I voted for everything except "Plain blue water". But, I must say, 2D (which was a good solution in WoG) is not as attractive as 3D in SoG. And if there would be coastline(s), they should be pretty thin, just enough to put some port on fort onto it.
My belated 2 pence is:
"Here be Monsters!"
with suitable artwork reflecting antique maps of the "unknown deeps"
Just a question, a couple of buddies played some small skirmishes (1 ship each) and noted the current mat is barely large enough for 2 ships. If I am hoping to sail 4 ships per side, am I entering the realm of my own custom sized mat? (especially considering the scarcity of the official SoG mats…). Not trying to start a ruckus, I'm seriously asking for opinions - please remember I'm a newbie to this group AND any sort of online forum.
I think it is great the first round of SoG sold as fast as it did. Considering the KS campaign leading into it, I am very hopeful this game has its sea legs and will have endurance. I'm looking forward to wave 2 and can't wait for more American ships to appear, along with Spanish ships and (of course!) pirates!
Hey Folks,
I met a couple of guys who are making gaming mats.
If you were able to have a mat design to be printed on vinyl, what size and features would you desire?
I want to employ one large mat next year at Origins - something I can set up the first day and leave up for the convention, something in which I don't have to be concerned about smaller mats pulling away from each other and is also easier to transport than multiple smaller mats.
A 4'x8' would work well for me, if I liked how it looked.:beer:
PS I prefer open sea mats showing small to medium waves. I would use my own 3D islands and shore lines.
Anyone think of using modern nautical charts? They show the depth as you get near the shore, where the sandbars. shallows and underwater obstructions are and all kinds of neat stuff. There are now nautical charts for any scale that you can print out on a map plotter. A 1:1000 chart of, say, Aboukir Bay would hog a mess of room but if you scale the chart to movement cards so the ships travel the right amount of distance per turn, the scale would probably be around 1:4000.
Odd for an avid collector of all the official releases, but this time I'm quite happy with my generic blue cloth, and just add the official extras when I need them, although Ken's idea of Nautical charts does appeal.
Rob.
Rob, do you like the "wind" lines or just solid blue? At Origins, I used one of CappyTom's blue vinyl mats - no wind lines superimposed. I ran the wind straight down the center from one end to the other without any change during the game. Folks started eyeballing wind attitude fairly quickly. I do like the richness of the dark blue Ares mats, but unless I am playing a solo game at home, I do not know how much I will use them in the future.
I have played on the mats with the wind lines, but don't find them any more useful than the indicator on its own with the aid of the octagonal attitude indicator, it is easy to align with the sides of an oblong table without needing lines, which detract from the aesthetic look of the game.
Having said that I do have a sneaking admiration for that idea of using an old sea chart with a blue wash over it, and Sea Monsters in the corners, for Pirate games.
Rob.
Like I mentioned before, I prefer open sea mats but, the wings of glory Coast mat butts up nicely to the SOG mats.:beer:
:beer: Maybe some coastlines with coastal batteries, some towns , ports, islands, stuff like that. maybe 3-d models to scale of course. :beer:
Playing in Neil's WGS session, Sue and I have renewed vigor to assemble 3-D items for SoG as well as WoG. We have been discussing some ideas. We have Andrzej's island from Origin's last year - beautiful, and Neil gave us his Taranto scenery. It definitely adds to the experience.
As has been said earlier in this thread, I want to see brand new ship sculpts on my mats. :wink:
I like the current game mats, its a pity they are rarer than rocking horse poo. :sad: