Firepower Ratings for HMS Unite

[Coog]

I was studying the ship logs and noticed that HMS Unite had an undamaged firepower rating of 3-3-2. Other ships usually have the same firepower number for the forward firing arcs as they do for the rear firing arcs. Sometimes the rear firing arc will be greater, but this is understandable as there are usually more guns on the larger quarterdeck than the forecastle. I can't figure out why HMS Unite would have a larger firepower rating of 3 for its forward arc while it only has a rating of 2 for its rear arc. Anyone have any ideas?

[David Manley]

The division of firepower ratings for partial broadsides is pretty arbitrary and not particularly historically realistic. The position and available firing arcs for ships main armament didn't really give rise to situations where ony half (for the sake of argument) a ships broadside could bear. So I look at is as agame artifact and tend to not worry too much about where the numbers came from. Personally I'd prefer narrower arcs and just use the full broadside rating.

[Bligh]

The division of firepower ratings for partial broadsides is pretty arbitrary and not particularly historically realistic. The position and available firing arcs for ships main armament didn't really give rise to situations where ony half (for the sake of argument) a ships broadside could bear. So I look at is as agame artifact and tend to not worry too much about where the numbers came from. Personally I'd prefer narrower arcs and just use the full broadside rating.

Interesting that you should say that Dave, as it is something I have been pondering ever since I started playing the game.
Most books seem to give the impression that guns were not used as in the game, but either in a complete broadside or fired as they came to bear, as in a ship raking another vessel as it passed the stern or bows.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Rob.

[fredmiracle]

I've taken it to reflect that at some point during movement the ship got into a shooting position but from a sub-optimal angle...

[TexaS]

I'm with fredmiracle on that. I think it's a way to cover the "jumps" when ships may pass each others without ever fire otherwise.

[David Manley]

That would be fine if the partial broadside factors were the same for forward and aft arcs.

[csadn]

I'm with fredmiracle on that. I think it's a way to cover the "jumps" when ships may pass each others without ever fire otherwise.

_Admiral_ has a way around that -- a unit which is moving may pause to fire; the unit it fires on then may return fire. Everyone gets a chance to fire without penalty.

[Bligh]

Works for me as long as the fire is taken at the best point in the passing move for both ships. Fire as you bear.
Rob.

[Coog]

A friend of mine that designs games often uses a "hold fire" option for units. A unit can move and fire anywhere along its movement. If it moves and does not fire it can "hold fire". When an enemy unit moves into a position where it can be fired upon, usually for the purpose of firing itself, the "hold fire" unit can fire at the enemy unit. Damage is simultaneous if they fire at the same time.

[Diamondback]

Bobby, I think Axis & Allies Miniatures "Ground Game" had a similar mechanic too.

[Bligh]

Sounds an ideal solution.
Rob.

[TexaS]

This would mean you wont risk missing a rake for jumping past the straight behind area.

[7eat51]

Having ran games for more than 10 people, I am pretty happy with Ares schema. I cannot imagine a two-hour con game in which shots were being made throughout the movement phase. Collisions can cause the game to slow down too much when a few ships are involved; I would think tracking firing would be similar. Is that a fair guess? Those of you with experience of this type of playing, what has been your experience?

I think along the lines of Fred's comment - suboptimal. There is so much abstraction in this game, that I don't think about simulation-like realism anymore. I find the game pretty fun as is, particularly when running games for others.

I would like, however, to explore various house rules and more realistic options when playing solo or with the right audience. I think it would be an enjoyable and informative experience. So, in essence, I am of two minds depending upon the nature of the session: FLGS, cons, etc. = game as is; solo or with certain individuals and time = explore optional rules.

[7eat51]

Just remembered, we had a similar discussion yesterday in our WoG Skype game about shooting throughout a maneuver - interesting stuff.

[TexaS]

Definitely!!

I play with most rules when playing with a few friends or solo, but when I held it at a convention I used basic rules for introductions and a mix of standard and advanced for the big battle.

This house rule would be used with other house rules and advanced + optional rules, never on a convention game.

I, as a rule, don't use house rules on convention games as I want to give a correct impression of the game and house rules I like might not suit everyone.
I could employ house rules that speed up gaming with many players if that doesn't change the feel and flow of the game. Returning chits and marking off on home made ships logs is the only thing for SoG so far.

[Bligh]

I have not as yet used any house rules, as I am still really just picking up the game, but I do like the look of quite a few of these ideas, and am quite willing to give them a try.
Rob.

[csadn]

Having ran games for more than 10 people, I am pretty happy with Ares schema. I cannot imagine a two-hour con game in which shots were being made throughout the movement phase. Collisions can cause the game to slow down too much when a few ships are involved; I would think tracking firing would be similar. Is that a fair guess? Those of you with experience of this type of playing, what has been your experience?

Not really -- "one, two, three, roll die to fire, results, four, five." The problem, as ever, is the player who is so hopelessly incapable of making a decision that every bloody move involves two minutes of hemming-and-hawing.