Evaluating ship maneuverability

[fredmiracle]

I like analyzing and quantifying things, and from day one I've been trying to figure out how to evaluate ship maneuverability in the game. I'm wondering what people have observed or think about this.


Some topics I've been pondering:

1) How important is maneuverability in the game? It's comparatively easy to quantify firepower and toughness. But if, say, a frigate has twice as much damage capacity and twice as much gunnery as a sloop, to what extent does it's better maneuverability mitigate this?


2) How important are the components of maneuverability (i.e. sailing angles, veer, speed and the card deck). Now we have several examples where these are not all strictly aligned with each other


3) As a practical measure, how do you quantify these things.

3a) Simply determining the sailing angles seems non-trivial. I'd like to simply measure the length of the bands along the sides, but you really want angles. But these can vary quite a bit based whether you measure from the post, the top of the mast or the bottom of the mast. Every time I measure I seem to get different results...

3b) I feel there might still be a bit more to learn from the cards. It would be fun to scan them and overlay. It may be that if you know the "base speed" (say, the length of the standard sail straight-5 arrow) then you could predict all the other arrows, but I'm not sure if that's the case. For example the sharp turns at full sail for the sloops seem to loop out far further than for smaller ships.


How do you think about maneuverability?

[DeRuyter]

Not really much of a factor when you have two lines of SOL slugging it out. For a Frigate duel or a smaller ship vs a larger one the maneuverability could make a difference.

[TexaS]

I think that a deck E is maneuverable enough for me to have fun, but it doesn't make the ships that much better. More maneuverability does make it more fun to play.

It's not the deck that makes for that rake. It's how you play. I find that when you can shoot at the enemy, the enemy can almost always shoot at you.
The first rates on the other hand is beasts, and that almost makes them less fun to play. I prefer third rates myself. I think they're a good compromise between maneuverability, firepower, and toughness.

The only time I would guess that a smaller, more maneuverable ship can make a difference would be in a bigger fight where the SoL concentrate on each others and frigates may "harass" from a distance, but I've never played such a game.

[Bos'n]

Fred,


If you feel you need to measure maneuverability then you can take the highest numbered card in the deck and subtract the lowest numbered card. An A deck would be 10-0=10, a B deck would be 8-2=6, and so on. I am not sure what the difference is between the A and C decks or the B and D decks. Anybody know?

Bob

[TexaS]

Mostly speed from what I remember. I'm not at home...

The British are a little quicker.

[Bos'n]

Mostly speed from what I remember. I'm not at home...

The British are a little quicker.

Jonas,

The cards do involve speed, but they also tell you how sharp a turn you can make. The farther a card number is from 5, the tighter the turn. The A deck allows you to be much more flexible (10-0=10) than the B deck (8-2=6).

Bob

[TexaS]

Yes they do, but a 6 is pretty much the same in all decks except for the length.
The pair A and C and the pair B and D have the same number of cards and the turns are the same angles. It's only the length of the movement that differs.

[Naharaht]

Being able to sail closer to the wind than your opponent can provide a means of escape in a 'Breakout' scenario.

[Kentop]

SOG is nowhere near a simulation of actual sailing. Whether a ship is quick to the helm or a wallowing pig is not considered. Wind direction alone determines how far a ship moves. Movement decks are pretty simple once you compare an "A" deck with an "H" deck. Special movement decks like those issued with HMS Victory and USS Constitution, look like any other deck. The difference can be measured in millimeters from decks already published. In an actual game, those special decks don't make any kind of a difference. If it did, then those special decks would always win, which defeats the purpose of gaming.

[HMS Lydia]

The straight movement distances are almost double (looking at card 1 or 2) between the A card and H card. I measured the straight line distances in the decks and there were variances in every deck. Not sure how Ares developed these variances. The I Deck and B deck are a case in point. Under full sail they both move ship base plus 45mm Green, Orange the both move base plus 25cm. When you look at Battle Sail they are different, I moves 28mm Green and 18mm orange, B moves one mm less in each. Interestingly, I found on backing sails all ships were within 2mm of each other, there was practically no variance what so ever.

I know the stats committee has been working on backward engineering most of this, but without strict engineering and sailing data maneuver would have to be hypothetical at best. I have finally broken some of the code, and believe Ares made some publishing errors which would be too expensive for them to fix, if they even caught the errors.

[Kentop]

It would cost Ares a lot less, and consumers too, if they just published one deck for each rate and left it at that. The cards are too small and narrow to have much of a movement difference between rates. Keeping it simple means you could just provide the four decks (two - 3rd rate decks and two -5th rate decks) with the starter set and sell extra decks for other ships separately from the ships themselves. You could buy fleet packs of six decks. Everybody has different types and quantities of ships, so customizing the quantity of decks needed would be easy. Right now, owning hundreds of ships means owning hundreds of decks, most of which I am guessing aren't even opened because most games only involve a few ships. Very few people could put on a large fleet action anyway. But you don't need a deck for every ship in your fleet. I could get by with 4 sets of decks or about 24 decks. I could have fleet actions involving 2 of each rate on each side, for a total of 24 ships on the table all at once. My largest games have only 4 to 6 ships on the table at once.

You can buy extra damage chits (which you have to do if you are even keeping the number of ships down to three on each side) but you can't buy extra decks of cards. The movement decks should be treated like damage chits. I'm sure there are gamers out there that want a complete movement deck for each ship they own. But to the rest of us, if you've seen one A deck, you've seen them all. Why open another A deck if you already using 4 or 5 A decks out of the 20 you have stacked up?

[HMS Lydia]

I agree on the decks. As an aside, I have run a 18 ship game (9 ships per side). I gave each side enough decks to run the ships, about 4 decks per. But, like many others we don't play the 2nd planned movement card. That means there are two of almost every card in each deck.

"Fighting Sail" went with a more generic movement system. For a fleet game, there is too much dicing and counter dicing, and dice checks. This slows a game. I'm looking forward to see what Ares generates as a set of fleet rules.

[7eat51]

Jonas, your comment about the first rates being beasts is something I am taking advantage of next year at Origins. This year, Neil ran a game in which the entire table was bombing an Italian port (WGS). It was a blast. I think it was two years ago, Keith ran a game with a Zeppelin. These games got me thinking about running a game in which I use first rates as pirates - easily imagined enemy, and have the entire table fighting against them with smaller rated ships. I, and a helper, would run the first rates. I need to work out the details, but it is fun having a common target and folks playing as a team.

In WGF, I grew to respect the speed difference of the SPAD XIII deck. I was playing a solo scenario, and that incremental difference added up after several maneuvers allowing the SPAD I was chasing to escape. I think playing solo gave me the opportunity to experience the growing edge each round.

[Union Jack]

Maneuvering comes into it's own but tactics and using the wind to your advantage is paramount. For extreme detail in this period there are many rules sets and each cover the nuances and detail in different ways. SoG is like it's sibling games WGF/WGS quick, fun with little or no preparation required. That is its beauty. Unlike planes though you are dealing with a vessel carrying may men and infinitely more firepower, hence it can be cumbersome and unwieldy to the uninitiated. That said Eric brought a simplicity to the games at Origins that had all players involved capable of independent control and actions after just 15 minutes. Explanations as to added complexity and rules were stated but once you've got the 'hook in' then most will come back o play and buy the game for themselves. You just have to make it fun, interesting and have a good scenario to grab their imagination their est they say is history. Of course you will get some who wont but there again you may get some who will. It is up to those of us who wish to to promote the game and widen its appeal to keep the ball rolling. Once it gains momentum then we may gain the popularity of WGF/WGS.

[Union Jack]

Just to add. Having read the battle of the Nile it was stated by one of the British captains that there was an unwritten rule that if there was an opposing SoL then no SoL would engage a frigate. That said a French frigate engaged a British SoL and received its just rewards. So in large battles frigates tended to stay out of the line of battle and engage similar ships. any SoL was expected to engage any other SoL no matter what its size.

As for national doctrine, the French should mostly but not always be downwind of the British. The French always wanted to have an escape route and surrendering the wind gave them this choice.The British should mostly have the wind and if not should attempt to gain it.

Just my tuppence ha'penny worth.

[Kentop]

Just to add. Having read the battle of the Nile it was stated by one of the British captains that there was an unwritten rule that if there was an opposing SoL then no SoL would engage a frigate. That said a French frigate engaged a British SoL and received its just rewards. So in large battles frigates tended to stay out of the line of battle and engage similar ships. any SoL was expected to engage any other SoL no matter what its size.

As for national doctrine, the French should mostly but not always be downwind of the British. The French always wanted to have an escape route and surrendering the wind gave them this choice.The British should mostly have the wind and if not should attempt to gain it.

Just my tuppence ha'penny worth.

I don't think that it was that cut and dried. Unwritten rules tend to fly out the window when the going gets rough. If a frigate captain was stupid enough to engage a 3rd rate SOL, he deserved to get blown out of the water. As far as the French staying leeward of the British, the wind off the coast of France usually blows from the west. The french were in their home port. Being able to make a dash for a home port was just common sense. You hear all kinds of things from the officers of the period after a battle, but any captain will take any advantage he can get in a fight. When Nelson crashed through the French at Trafalgar, they wound up on the French's lee side and the French were to windward during the hottest part of the action.

[fredmiracle]

So what I'm taking from this thread is that there is a general sense that the maneuverability differences between ships and decks are not all that important to the outcome, and that the maneuvering tactics that the player selects are much more significant.

So on the topic of maneuvering tactics--are there "good tactics" for the game? I.e. preferred approaches or techniques that a player can discover or learn to be more effective at maneuvering? Has anyone learned anything useful? Or is it more a matter of getting better at visualizing and estimating the results of the moves? Or at out-guessing your opponent? Or is it mostly just luck in what is a "game of inches"?

How has your thinking about or skill at maneuvering changed as you've played? I sometimes feel I'm getting better at estimating and choosing just the right maneuver, or that the move I just pulled off was intentionally brilliant, but it doesn't happen consistently enough to convince me that it's not just luck...

[Herkybird]

I looked at the manoeuverability question in detail when writing my solo rules. There is no great advantage in greater manoeuverability except in 2 instances:

(1) 1st and 2nd rates tend to take a long time to turn, compared with lower rated ships which have the 90 degree turn (except Victory, of course!) Ships with a 90 degree turn can get a full broadside to bear in 1 manoeuvre, which can allow them to rake less manoeuverable ships--if they are lucky!

(2) Less manoeuverable ships take longer to get back into shooting range when they have passed their opponents, and can quickly end up over 2 cannon shots away. This is only important in multi ship encounters, where the enemy can focus the fire of several ships against one.

This is what I have found, anyway!

[Kentop]

Herkybird is right. Wind has more effect on movement than the movement decks do. Having to tack into the wind in order to bring your guns to bear is the most difficult maneuver. You must always try to keep the wind in your sails. If you have to turn, wearing is better that tacking. "Good" tactics can best be summed up by Lord Nelson's last order to his fleet at Trafalgar, "Engage the enemy more closely". The limited space SOL ships have to engage in brings up another problem. If you don't engage more to the windward side of the board, you will wind up being forced to tack to avoid the edge of the playing area. This is where the greatest advantage is had if you are windward of your enemy. Raking an enemy is a lot easier when they have no choice but to be in irons to avoid sailing off the edge. You can use the playing surface like a boxing ring. Get your enemy on the ropes, paint him into a corner, and pound away. Keep your ship(s) in the middle of the playing area, give yourself room to maneuver, and engage as closely as you can.

[Bligh]

I am also concerned about sails and masts going by the board. Lots of reports of them acting as a drag on maneuverability until the hands could cut it away. i think that in addition to the hands having to carry out clearing it there should be a penalty on maneuvering and speed until it is cleared.
Bligh.

[7eat51]

I have only run games with a basic/standard/house mix of rules. I use the sail damage chits; I am contemplating adding the mast damage and associated maneuver cards for the following two rounds, or some such schema. Would those cards address your concern, Rob?

[TexaS]

Jonas, your comment about the first rates being beasts is something I am taking advantage of next year at Origins. ... These games got me thinking about running a game in which I use first rates as pirates - easily imagined enemy, and have the entire table fighting against them with smaller rated ships.

The worst part about them is the bad sailing angles and how long it takes to turn the other way after veer damage.
I thought that was the way I was going to do Battle of San Domingo, but I had players play both sides and let the french lift anchor to the first round and not as late as I had intended.

This year, Neil ran a game in which the entire table was bombing an Italian port (WGS).

Oh No! Now it'll take forever to get anything even printed from Ares. I thought it was bad enough with deliveries from China.

(Sorry for not responding earlier. I've been away biking 300 km around a lake in one go.)

[Bligh]

I have only run games with a basic/standard/house mix of rules. I use the sail damage chits; I am contemplating adding the mast damage and associated maneuver cards for the following two rounds, or some such schema. Would those cards address your concern, Rob?

Could well fit the bill for me Eric. i was just thinking of making it a task, and until it was achieved the ship could only do low speed or turn towards the side the damage fell, ie. to leeward.
Rob.

[7eat51]

(Sorry for not responding earlier. I've been away biking 300 km around a lake in one go.)

Were you being chased?

[Herkybird]

I have always used the special damage, as this level was what I was introduced to the game at!
It definitely makes the ships manoeuvre poorly when you have mast damage, which can be a problem, but not always!
a couple of games back, we had a 2 mast lost French 74 which still managed to manoeuvre well enough to pound us. It seemed to manoeuvre better in that game with masts down than when it was undamaged!

I still think special damage and crew actions gives the game flavour and excitement, and are well worth using!

[TexaS]

Were you being chased?

It's a bike race with 20000 participants that I have been biking fifteen years in a row now.


I really like special damage but I think they are a little too frequent. I think it was Fredmiracle that suggested using two sets of counters and removing fire and leaks from one of the sets before adding it. Still, with repairs available no ship has struck from loosing its masts, but there were many broken masts during the Battle of San Domingo I set up on LinCon.

[Bos'n]

I am also concerned about sails and masts going by the board. Lots of reports of them acting as a drag on maneuverability until the hands could cut it away. i think that in addition to the hands having to carry out clearing it there should be a penalty on maneuvering and speed until it is cleared.
Bligh.

Mr. Bligh,

It seems to me that there are 3 problems with broken masts and how the effect the ship.

1. Getting rid of the broken masts - the mast needs to be cleared using the Repair Damage action just like any other damage.
2. Speed and Steering - the sail dragging in the water would cause the ship's speed to drop similar to lowering the sails 1 step and the steerage problem can be solved by lowering the veer to 2 until the wreckage is cleared.

3, Cannon fire - only the forward broadside on the side the mast came down on can be used until the broken mast is cleared away. Flip a coin, or draw 1 of 2 tokens to decide which side of the ship is affected.

The mast coming down may not be the first thing on the captains mind (fires, leaks come to mind.)

What do you think, let me know.

Bob

[TexaS]

I'd say you draw one of the broken mast cards for the first round and then the player may choose one turning the same way for the next or the mast will always fall leeway.

[7eat51]

I think for something like Origins, where time limits are tight, and player experience ranges from none to much, a simple set of rules like the following could work:

1. The player replaces the planned maneuver with a broken-mast maneuver card of the same direction. If the purely straight number 5 card was planned, the player chooses which side.
2. The player must plan a second broken-mast maneuver card of the same direction.
3. During the two maneuvers, the player can fire only a forward broadside from the associated side.
4. The player loses the current highest sail setting for the remainder of the game.

[Bos'n]

Yes they do, but a 6 is pretty much the same in all decks except for the length.
The pair A and C and the pair B and D have the same number of cards and the turns are the same angles. It's only the length of the movement that differs.

TexaS,

You're correct, 6s or 8s are pretty much the same as other 6s and 8s. That is not the point. If your ship can make an 8 turn, but mine can make a 9 or 10 turn, then my ship is more maneuverable and you have a disadvantage. That is why the subtraction method works for me (8-2=6 maneuverability score v 10-0=10 maneuverability score).

Bob

[Bos'n]

So what I'm taking from this thread is that there is a general sense that the maneuverability differences between ships and decks are not all that important to the outcome, and that the maneuvering tactics that the player selects are much more significant.

So on the topic of maneuvering tactics--are there "good tactics" for the game? I.e. preferred approaches or techniques that a player can discover or learn to be more effective at maneuvering? Has anyone learned anything useful? Or is it more a matter of getting better at visualizing and estimating the results of the moves? Or at out-guessing your opponent? Or is it mostly just luck in what is a "game of inches"?

How has your thinking about or skill at maneuvering changed as you've played? I sometimes feel I'm getting better at estimating and choosing just the right maneuver, or that the move I just pulled off was intentionally brilliant, but it doesn't happen consistently enough to convince me that it's not just luck...

No! Maneuverability is a tool. Wether it is an important one is up to the captain. How you measure it could be discussed, but how nimble your ship is, is a fact and not able to be written off because of anyone's opinion about how useful it is.

Sorry about the message. It was ment to be thought provoking and not naysaying.


Bob.

[TexaS]

I am not sure what the difference is between the A and C decks or the B and D decks. Anybody know?

Bob

TexaS,

You're correct, 6s or 8s are pretty much the same as other 6s and 8s. That is not the point. If your ship can make an 8 turn, but mine can make a 9 or 10 turn, then my ship is more maneuverable and you have a disadvantage. That is why the subtraction method works for me (8-2=6 maneuverability score v 10-0=10 maneuverability score).

Bob

Maybe not the point but that's what the original question I answered was about.

But yes, the number of cards makes all the difference in how maneuverable a ship is and the lengths how fast.

It would be cool if they actually made a deck which took consideration to if a ships class sailed exceptionally fast/slow in strong or weak winds.

[Bos'n]

Maybe not the point but that's what the original question I answered was about.

But yes, the number of cards makes all the difference in how maneuverable a ship is and the lengths how fast.

It would be cool if they actually made a deck which took consideration to if a ships class sailed exceptionally fast/slow in strong or weak winds.

I agree, imagine that, different strengths and which point of sail you're on.

Bob.

[TexaS]

Like when they make a special deck for the Indefatigable and use the situation with Droits de l'Homme to make her go very well close-hauled.

[Herkybird]

Interesting discussion, however, I think broken masts are an abstraction as innaccurate as, for example, suddenly getting your lost right turn back after 3 actions in Wings of Glory WW1!
I dont think it bothers me enough to change anything.

Thats my tuppence worth anyway!