Requesting playtest, two special ships

[Diamondback]

Since I got no help on Testflight, I'm crossposting this request here...

As some of you will recall, I've been amassing a pile of data for various armaments on different ships. I had an idea for a "special rule" for a couple specific ships, and was wondering if somebody'd be willing to test 'em and suggest a points adjustment for each...

Ships: SGN104 Slade Common 74 as HMS Egmont 1783 armament, SGN103 Amazon 32 as HMS Castor (later armament; need to double-check my notes on when Castor went Carronade Crazy)

Given that these two ships at the times I'm proposing this special rule for them were armed stem-to-stern, top-to-bottom with carronades, I would propose that these two ships be allowed to use Double Shot every time they fire, but ONLY be able to attack at B range or closer.

Anybody willing to test these in comparison to their standard counterparts and give me some feedback?

[7eat51]

Since I got no help on Testflight, I'm crossposting this request here...

As some of you will recall, I've been amassing a pile of data for various armaments on different ships. I had an idea for a "special rule" for a couple specific ships, and was wondering if somebody'd be willing to test 'em and suggest a points adjustment for each...

Ships: SGN104 Slade Common 74 as HMS Egmont 1783 armament, SGN103 Amazon 32 as HMS Castor (later armament; need to double-check my notes on when Castor went Carronade Crazy)

Given that these two ships at the times I'm proposing this special rule for them were armed stem-to-stern, top-to-bottom with carronades, I would propose that these two ships be allowed to use Double Shot every time they fire, but ONLY be able to attack at B range or closer.

Anybody willing to test these in comparison to their standard counterparts and give me some feedback?

Regarding tests, are you asking for theoretical verification, or how such a rule feels in terms of gameplay?

[Diamondback]

I'm mainly asking for if it feels overpowered compared to their baseline counterparts, underpowered, or just about right to represent the tradeoff of more close-range damage but unable to hit farther out. Mainly gameplay feel, since we don't have the mathematical formula to determine how they assign Gunnery stats like we do for WGF and WGS.

Frankly, I'm somewhat dubious about the objectivity of the entire existing gunnery system including ranges, (a 32# should WELL outrange a 6# but a 6#-armed sloop, 12#-armed frigate and 32#-armed SOL all have the same weapons ranges on the ruler), but for quickly capturing the feel of AoS it seems about the best they could do for a "no-dice, beer-&-pretzels, 1-stat-line, basically WGS At Sea" system. For the more hardcore sorts, there are table-based rulesets out there...

[7eat51]

I'm sure several of us would be willing to give this rule a try and provide feedback. Count me in. First, though, I must go after some Spanish gold.

[Nightmoss]

I'm sure several of us would be willing to give this rule a try and provide feedback. Count me in. First, though, I must go after some Spanish gold.

Eric, do you think that the solo rules could be used effectively in testing DB's ships? I would assume that the AI would be the normal ship and you'd control the carronaded ones?

[Diamondback]

Thanks, guys--solitaire might be good for an equal-skill test.

I'm thinking two sets of comparison tests, each single ship on single ship:
1. Stock versus all-carronade under equal conditions. Say they start at the half mark of the map's short sides, wind coming from center of one of the long sides.
2. Comparison against the enemy: say, take any stock British Slade 74 against any French Temeraire, then repeat with the same two ships and same conditions, but using the Egmont Special Rule.

[Nightmoss]

Thanks, guys--solitaire might be good for an equal-skill test.

I'm thinking two sets of comparison tests, each single ship on single ship:
1. Stock versus all-carronade under equal conditions. Say they start at the half mark of the map's short sides, wind coming from center of one of the long sides.
2. Comparison against the enemy: say, take any stock British Slade 74 against any French Temeraire, then repeat with the same two ships and same conditions, but using the Egmont Special Rule.

I'd like to try this out, but I'm not going to have time until after GenCon most likely. This isn't time sensitive is it? Will be interesting.

[Diamondback]

No hurry whatsoever, amigo.

[7eat51]

Jim, I think this would make for a good house rule test for the second set of solo rules. We could do this now for DB, providing him feedback, and based on our experience, flesh out an entire carronade set of rules. I'll have to check, but I think Bobby and others have made some carronade suggestions previously. I think there is enough knowledge and experience among folks here that we could develop something quite useful - not just general carronade rules, but also specific swaps like DB is suggesting. Folks could then have rules and a ship roster.

[Diamondback]

There's a problem with mixed-weaponry loads... we don't know how Ares allocates Gunnery points, and to begin adjusting we'd need to know that so we know how many points come off with the old guns and then how many go on with the new carronades.

Part of why I chose these two ships, they're nothing BUT carronades, so they're a more level playing field--though there're some scary stats. Egmont throws a 1684# broadside, the standard Slade Commons only throw 781-965#, and Victory at her 1783 maximum only throws 1328#; even Hibernia, the heaviest-armed British First Rate I've found before the end of the Napoleonic Wars, only throws 1476#. Among the Oceans, the heaviest throw I've found, Etats de Bourgogne, tosses 1593#. So maybe use an Ocean's gunnery stats at B range, but either nothing or half the number of chits drawn for A-range as an "alternate" if the quick-and-dirty turns out underpowered.

Castor, OTOH... she throws 466#, while the last ships in service in 1815 (allegedly upgraded to pack 18# guns) only tossed 306#, the norm for a British 12-pounder 32 being around 228.

[7eat51]

I don't want to be hindered by the lack of info regarding Ares' process. If any of the designers ever inform us of there schema, we can make adjustments, but I would like to think that, together, we can develop a reasonable set of carronade rules.

Do you foresee any info on the ship calculus coming our way? I know they have shared on the 'Drome how points for planes were developed, which provided some insight into mechanics choices.

[Diamondback]

Dunno, I've nudged and even suggested the development of a standard Design Tool in Excel, but I'm basically as in the dark as you are. I'd assume also that it assumes more guns doesn't mean bigger broadsides so much as you just lose gunnery slower... a First Rate should be able to potshot a sloop or frigate into oblivion well before the smaller ship enters her own weapons range. (I would have handled this by restricting the A range to SOL's only, myself.)

[Nightmoss]

Jim, I think this would make for a good house rule test for the second set of solo rules. We could do this now for DB, providing him feedback, and based on our experience, flesh out an entire carronade set of rules. I'll have to check, but I think Bobby and others have made some carronade suggestions previously. I think there is enough knowledge and experience among folks here that we could develop something quite useful - not just general carronade rules, but also specific swaps like DB is suggesting. Folks could then have rules and a ship roster.

David, DB, Bobby and others have definitely talked about carronades before and I do think some of this could transfer into the solo rules very well. I'm not knowledgeable enough to theorycraft, but I can test out ships others set the stats and rules for.

I was looking at some of the data on the Santisima Trinidad recently and was surprised to see she had obusier's (howitzers) on the lower gun deck, which illustrates just how little I know about the ships and guns of this period. I need to read more.

[Diamondback]

As an alternate I've also WAG'ed some gunnery stats for Egmont, basically took the First Rate that had closest throw-weight and squashed it from a 12-box gunnery track to a 10-box, keeping the B-Range Only restriction. I was thinking "Double Shot Every Time" would be a simpler rule than creating a new Log, but I like to try to work out two separate solutions to cover my bases.

Just for reference, this refit of Egmont's main battery was the same 68# carronades as occupied Victory's forecastle at Trafalgar... A LOT of them. O.O

[fredmiracle]

One thought--the arbitrary map limits of a game like Sails may give an all-carronade ship an unrealistic advantage.

If I was fighting against one of these ships, I would work hard to stay on the far edge of A range, being sure to err on the side of being out of range. No harm done if you're out of range for a while, time is on your side and you just want to peck away with the periodic A shot. But it would be a cardinal sin to let the opposing ship get into range, since one broadside would be crippling.

In open sea this might be easy, or might be an interesting challenge, depending on the relative sailing characteristics of the ships. But in Sails, the carronade ship would have the potential to simply pin me against the edge of the map, which would probably be game over.

[Diamondback]

True, which could perhaps be compensated for by weakening the broadside. For example, undamaged Double Shot Egmont would throw six each A and B chits within B range, while undamaged Restatted Egmont on the test stats I've WAG'ed up only throws 7 B's.

Actually, I was just looking at the nuts and bolts of Warhammer Trafalgar last night... which suggests that carronades should actually be limited to about C/D range, that game having a 1-2-3 range proportion between carronades, 18#-or-less guns and 24#-or-more guns. So perhaps the way to represent it is drawing an extra chit at B Range?

[David Manley]

True, which could perhaps be compensated for by weakening the broadside. For example, undamaged Double Shot Egmont would throw six each A and B chits within B range, while undamaged Restatted Egmont on the test stats I've WAG'ed up only throws 7 B's.

Actually, I was just looking at the nuts and bolts of Warhammer Trafalgar last night... which suggests that carronades should actually be limited to about C/D range, that game having a 1-2-3 range proportion between carronades, 18#-or-less guns and 24#-or-more guns. So perhaps the way to represent it is drawing an extra chit at B Range?

A couple of observations here:

1) I wouldn't nerf a ship just because of an artificiality such as an apparently "hard" table edge. Unless its hard for a reason (e.g. a coastline) I'd "scroll" the table wneh an edge is approached (a well used naval wargaming manoeuvre).

2) Never, never, NEVER use Warhammer Trafalgar as a reference!!!

[fredmiracle]

I wouldn't nerf a ship just because of an artificiality such as an apparently "hard" table edge. Unless its hard for a reason (e.g. a coastline) I'd "scroll" the table wneh an edge is approached (a well used naval wargaming manoeuver

As a point of principle I get that (and certainly the map edge handling feels arbitrary, and I do generally play using the "scroll" myself). But if a proposed optional rule is intended to be a modular bolt-on, it seems worth considering the body of rules as they exist and which most players may be expected to utilize. At a minimum one might need to cite this (no mapedge pins) as a necessary additional rule change to make such ships work.

I guess a related question is that if scrolling IS allowed, would a carronade-only ship make for good games. But it does seem worth testing.

[Diamondback]

David, I knew WHT had severe flaws and you had once mentioned doing a near-total rewrite for your own use, but had wondered if there MIGHT be ANYTHING salvageable in it. Looks like it's time to put out the question of how other AOS game systems handle Carronades vs. Long Guns...

If somebody wants to retry the stats, here's the "New Log" version based on First Rate stats:

Ship	Box 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Baseline Slade Common 74	4-6-4	4-6-4	3-5-4	3-5-3	3-4-3	2-4-3	2-3-2	1-2-1	1-1-1	0-0-0	X	X
HMS Egmont 1782 rearm	5-7-6	5-7-5	4-7-4	4-6-4	3-5-4	3-5-4	3-4-3	1-2-1	1-1-1	0-0-0	X	X
1791 Orient	5-7-6	5-7-5	4-7-5	4-7-4	4-6-4	3-5-4	3-5-4	3-4-3	2-4-3	2-3-3	1-2-2	0-0-0

Historical armament was:
LD 28x68#crde = 952# (heavier on this one deck than all but the next highest Slade's entire broadsides)
MD 28x42#crde = 588# (a little more than a heavily-armed 64)
QD/FC 12x24#crde = 144# (a little less than a late sixth-rate 28)
Throw is 2.16x design Full Broadside, which if we were doing a linear char would mean throwing 13 chits per turn, a potential Gamebreaker even if you're limited to only ONE instance of Egmont on the table--which is historical, though the rearm was carried for ten years no other Slade 74 was so equipped, and I don't recall ANY other.

So on paper we are talking about what historically WAS a very powerful ship, the problem being that anything bigger than about a 32# ball was usually found to require more manpower to load than it was worth. Maybe an effect that the 68# takes an extra turn of reload, so you've got to give two reload actions before you can fire again.

[Nightmoss]

DB, I have some time this afternoon to playtest this, but with the additional discussions I've lost track of what exactly you want for the Egmont? I'll go do a solo test of the two 74s to start and then check back later. Thanks.

[Diamondback]

Jim, how 'bout trying the "Double Shot Every Turn But No Fire Outside B Range" version first for the two approaches to Egmont? That's going straight to the extreme end of the scale, which would tell us if it needs to be scaled back.

Thanks! :)

[Nightmoss]

Jim, how 'bout trying the "Double Shot Every Turn But No Fire Outside B Range" version first for the two approaches to Egmont? That's going straight to the extreme end of the scale, which would tell us if it needs to be scaled back.

Thanks! :)

I started out with two Bellona's this afternoon just to warm up. I lost to the AI by one fraking draw, but that's good because it helps prove the AI isn't a pushover (or I'm just a lousy captain?).

In any case I'm about half way through the second game, but am taking a dinner break. Bellona vs. Egmont. The AI is running Egmont and so far I've managed to stay out of B Range and whittle the ship down 3 hull boxes; down to 4-6-4. I will state up front that I've shifted the ships twice now to keep my ship from being pinned against the mat edge. Maybe that's something you would have preferred I didn't do, but any sane captain would likely stay at A Range as long as possible to avoid the horrendous carronades. It's playing very differently than a normal exchange, more of a dancing duel than a slug fest? I'm enjoying the change of fighting style.

More later if I finish it up tonight.

[Diamondback]

Jim, I'm with David on "scrolling" as being appropriate unless there's a hard edge like coastline. :) Close wins and close losses prove the AI rules are just about right--if we saw a trend of blowouts either way there'd be a problem.

[Nightmoss]

Jim, I'm with David on "scrolling" as being appropriate unless there's a hard edge like coastline. :) Close wins and close losses prove the AI rules are just about right--if we saw a trend of blowouts either way there'd be a problem.

Here's how it ended up. After 26 turns the Egmont struck. I ended up scrolling the ships 4 times, but this is how you work the opponent when you know they can't shoot at A Range and you can. Even so, I had terrible chit draws so the Egmont lasted fairly long all things considered. The AI consistently tried to close with the Bellona, but it's not difficult to keep distance unless you run into issues with the wind. That might have been the major problem for the AI as it got taken aback several turns running (I used the basic rules for taken aback so the 2 "hourglass" moves are the only ones you can use).

The Bellona only took 1 crew damage towards the end when I decided to close to B Range to see what would happen. The Egmont only had one hull space left so the B Range Double Shot was 1 crew (A chit) and a zero (B chit) from a forward arc broadside. The Bellona simultaneously hit with a full broadside or 6 "B" chits (5/4c/3/2c/2/0), which was a pretty devastating conclusion to the battle.

Using the Standard or Advanced rules would most likely change the battle, but I can't recall pulling a lot of special damage tokens that the AI would have had to contend with?

I could also try switching to play the Egmont and have the AI play the Bellona, but I suspect that would be a short battle as the AI does close quickly and at B Range the Double Shot would be incredible. Perhaps we really need two live players to test further?

Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to try out.

[Diamondback]

Another question would be, how easy was it to identify specific ships back then? For example, at first Essex's carronade load worked because it was a surprise, but when one or two got away and shared the intel about "American frigate in area, all carronade armament," the cat was out of the bag... maybe we need some kind of "blind" mechanism where Egmont can either come in with regular gun or all-carronade load and the player doesn't have to reveal their choice until they fire their first gunnery attack.(AI, flip a coin or roll a die when you enter B-range.)

This would also imply to me that Egmont would be either better suited to chasing off convoy raiders, or to operations with another 74 as a "stalking horse".

[Nightmoss]

Good point, which crossed my mind while playtesting this. If I hadn't known about the Egmont I would have closed initially, but after one broadside of any arc would have tried to put distance between the two ships. There's still no guarantee that the Egmont would pull killer chits but with that base number of pulls odds are pretty good that any ship might be hurting after one volley?

[Diamondback]

Jim, how'd you feel about a 2-v-2 test with the Coin Toss factor for next round? Last test demonstrated precisely the historical Achilles Heel of going carronade-crazy... though it bears mention that the Achilles heel of the carronade was not the gun itself so much as the operators, doctrine and sighting systems--more precisely, lack thereof; the swollen muzzle of a typical gun gave you a sight-line roughly aligned with the bore, while the tapering outer surface of the carronade shifted the firing angle a few degrees above line of sight unless you installed a sight to correct for it.

I've tried to find data about Egmont's performance at Cape Spartel, but other than her taking zero casualties am coming up dry.

[7eat51]

DB, I can put together a game over the next couple of days with Sue and some friends. Let me know what you would like to have run.

Jim, thanks for the write-ups. I like the option of some dancing than just straight head-to-head blasting - a nice type of scenario to add to the mix.

[Nightmoss]

Jim, how'd you feel about a 2-v-2 test with the Coin Toss factor for next round? Last test demonstrated precisely the historical Achilles Heel of going carronade-crazy... though it bears mention that the Achilles heel of the carronade was not the gun itself so much as the operators, doctrine and sighting systems--more precisely, lack thereof; the swollen muzzle of a typical gun gave you a sight-line roughly aligned with the bore, while the tapering outer surface of the carronade shifted the firing angle a few degrees above line of sight unless you installed a sight to correct for it.

I've tried to find data about Egmont's performance at Cape Spartel, but other than her taking zero casualties am coming up dry.

If Eric, Susan and company do this test in the next few days I'll hold off. If not, I'll give it a shot over the weekend? I may try playing the Egmont vs. the AI, one on one, just to see how devastating the battle might be? More later.

[Diamondback]

Gents, I'm going to be offline from about noon most of the way to Sunday night. Actually, would you both mind running tests in different avenues? Eric, I'm asking you for a 2-v-2 with equal forces other than Egmont gaining the "Armament Unrevealed Until Entering Range", and Jim, it'd be interesting to see how you might try to attack with this ship--so maybe make that one a Coin Toss too, for whether the AI knows about your special load in advance or not.

Eric, test protocol is basically two identical forces of two Slade 74's, just that one ship on one side gets the Egmont Option.

Also, in looking up this ship's history I found that after Cape Spartel she was laid up for around ten years, and it looks like she may not have even fired a shot there since Howe's objective was to draw a blockade out of position, so there may not be any empirical data to BE had for her, much like the effect of an Iowa-class broadside with nuke shells.

[Nightmoss]

Gents, I'm going to be offline from about noon most of the way to Sunday night. Actually, would you both mind running tests in different avenues? Eric, I'm asking you for a 2-v-2 with equal forces other than Egmont gaining the "Armament Unrevealed Until Entering Range", and Jim, it'd be interesting to see how you might try to attack with this ship--so maybe make that one a Coin Toss too, for whether the AI knows about your special load in advance or not.

Eric, test protocol is basically two identical forces of two Slade 74's, just that one ship on one side gets the Egmont Option.

Also, in looking up this ship's history I found that after Cape Spartel she was laid up for around ten years, and it looks like she may not have even fired a shot there since Howe's objective was to draw a blockade out of position, so there may not be any empirical data to BE had for her, much like the effect of an Iowa-class broadside with nuke shells.

Will do. I've got some ideas to assist the AI when it discovers the armament capabilities of the Egmont.

[fredmiracle]

I could also try switching to play the Egmont and have the AI play the Bellona, but I suspect that would be a short battle as the AI does close quickly and at B Range the Double Shot would be incredible

I had a PM from Jose Manuel a few weeks back, suggesting we develop some alternate solitaire movement templates. He's done a fairly complex decision-tree thing for Wings, but it's in Spanish and I haven't fed it through Google translate yet, so while it looks cool, I'm not sure I entirely get it. At any rate, in the past we've kicked around developing a more "timid" solitaire persona, that tried to maintain range, as well as possibly an even more aggressive one (is that possible?), maybe one for fleeing, etc.

With that in mind, it seems this might be an opportunity to dig into the topic a bit more, to see if it's really feasible--for example, see if we could "program" the AI with a different template (to be used when the "target ship" is 100% carronade armed) which tries to maintain A range...

[7eat51]

Will do, DB.

Sounds good Fred.

[csadn]

For example, at first Essex's carronade load worked because it was a surprise, but when one or two got away and shared the intel about "American frigate in area, all carronade armament," the cat was out of the bag...

Reminds: I still can't find any data on the armaments of most of_Essex_'s captures -- just the one which became _Essex Junior_. I need to figure out if it would have been possible for _Essex_ to rearm itself to something closer to OEM spec from its victims.

[Diamondback]

Probably not, your typical mercantile vessel IIRC usually carried only 6's or 12's--18's at the heaviest, on the bigger ones or company-sponsored warships like HEIC's frigates. And by even Trafalgar, a 12-pounder was basically the "I fart in your general direction" of man-o'-war gunnery, much like the 9-pounder and 6-pounder before it.

[Nightmoss]

I ran a solo game this afternoon as the Egmont and the AI as the Bellona. I'm going to wait for Eric, Susan and their group to do their 2 v 2 before I report on my results.

I will say that the game went a lot longer than I had thought it might.

[csadn]

Probably not, your typical mercantile vessel IIRC usually carried only 6's or 12's--18's at the heaviest, on the bigger ones or company-sponsored warships like HEIC's frigates. And by even Trafalgar, a 12-pounder was basically the "I fart in your general direction" of man-o'-war gunnery, much like the 9-pounder and 6-pounder before it.

That's why I wondered -- _Essex_'s original loadout was mostly 12-lb. guns (26 12s longs and 16 24-lb. carronades); it was supposed to be a *light* frigate.

[Nightmoss]

Here's some detail on the playtest of the HMS Egmont vs. HMS Bellona I ran on Thursday. I played the Egmont and the AI ran Bellona. I decided before hand that the Bellona would disengage on a D6 roll of 1-3 (adding one each turn if the ship didn't break off immediately), but only after a B Range broadside of any kind from the Egmont. Both ships started in the top corners of a SoG mat, wind favoring both.

First combat was on turn 4 when the Bellona fired a forward arc broadside on the Egmont (damage was 2/2/0/0).

On turn 5 the Egmont returned fire with a full broadside at B Range (A=5/4/4/3/c/c/0) (B=4/3/2/1/0/0/0). This blocked 5 hull slots plus two crew slots on the Bellona.

Turn 6 the Bellona did not flee and took a broadside shot at Egmont (4/1c/0/0). Musketry fire between them also occurred. Egmont took (0/0/c) and Bellona (0/0/c).

It's at this point I had a big debate on 'Double Shot Fired Every Turn'. Normally Double Shot take 2 turns to reload, but if allowed to fire every turn that made me think that at least one turn for reloading would have to occur? Consequently, Egmont did not return fire at B Range on turn 6. If it had I suspect the game would have ended here?

I decided to keep playing this out just to see how disengagement might work and also see if the Bellona could maintain A Range fire to whittle down the Egmont.

Turn 7 the Bellona rolls to disengage and moves out of B Range.

Over the next 21 turns I had the Bellona navigating to a point on the edge of the mat, which effectively kept it out of B Range, but able to take shots on the Egmont at A Range. I scrolled the ships as needed.

On turn 23 the Egmont did manage a B Range broadside, but it still wasn't enough to force the Bellona to strike.

Finally when the Bellona was taken aback on Turn 28 the Egmont managed a B Range broadside, but so did the Bellona. Bellona finally surrenders.

Clearly ships this different in armament really alter the dynamics of battle and play. And while it was a particularly long battle it was informative.

[Diamondback]

Right, Jim, my thinking was "every firing turn, standard single-shot reload cycle between"--shoulda been clearer, but you guessed right. :) In essence, Egmont gives you Double Shot every fire, but shouldn't cancel standard reloads.

[Nightmoss]

Right, Jim, my thinking was "every firing turn, standard single-shot reload cycle between"--shoulda been clearer, but you guessed right. :) In essence, Egmont gives you Double Shot every fire, but shouldn't cancel standard reloads.

Cool! Glad I got it right. Well, I can tell you that it was damn frustrating always having the Bellona just outside of B Range. . .28 turns is a long time to fight a fleeing ship.

[Diamondback]

So that's what, a Three-Connect KO? I'll start cooking stats for 1808-rearm Castor, since I don't think her broadside grew quite as much...

OOPS, Castor is even WORSE--Egmont is only 2.16x Original Design Broadside, while Castor's 28x32#crde plus 2x12# and 2x6# long guns adds up to a 466# broadside, or a factor of 2.68x Original Design. Let's call it 2.5 to keep it round... maybe draw alternating A-B and A-A-B double/triple shots every other fire (say, odd fires double, even fires triple). British version of USS Essex? LOL

[Nightmoss]

So that's what, a Three-Connect KO? I'll start cooking stats for 1808-rearm Castor, since I don't think her broadside grew quite as much...

OOPS, Castor is even WORSE--Egmont is only 2.16x Original Design Broadside, while Castor's 28x32#crde plus 2x12# and 2x6# long guns adds up to a 466# broadside, or a factor of 2.68x Original Design. Let's call it 2.5 to keep it round... maybe draw alternating A-B and A-A-B double/triple shots every other fire (say, odd fires double, even fires triple). British version of USS Essex? LOL

That would be absolutely crazy! :)

[Diamondback]

Yeah, these ships are a lot like a line in one of Mom's favorite TV series...

"Be quick... or be GONE!"
--Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson, LAPD, The Closer

[Nightmoss]

OK. Here's a follow up test on the Amazon class. For reference the ship log is:

[2-4-2][2-3-2][2-3-2][1-2-2][1-2-1][1-2-1][1-1-1][0-1-1]. Burden is 2, Veer is 8 and C Deck.

I used two Cleopatra's, but one was up armed as the Castor. Castor only fires at B Range or less. As suggested by DB I tried two variants on the chit draws of the Castor.

Number one test was an equal number of chits from A Range and B Range, then another draw from the A Range bag, keeping 3 or under damage and putting 4 or larger back in the back. So on a full broadside from the Castor you'd pull 4 A Chits, 4 B Chits and then 4 more A Chits, but keeping only the damage of 3 or less.

Number two test was alternating A-B chit draws as double shot and then A-A-B on the next firing turn as triple shot.

Assuming I got this all correct (and you know what they say about assuming) here's the short version on 3 battles I fought this evening.

Battle One (testing first chit draw)

The Castor and Cleopatra started on the short end of the mat, wind was from the long end but favoring both ships. AI ran the the Cleopatra I ran the Castor. Basic Rules, although I've recorded special damage so DB can see the draws. Both ships moved quickly towards the center and combat occurred on Turn 4. The Cleopatra never got an A Range shot, so combat was at B Range for both ships.

Castor fires/drew 4 A and 4 B, then 4 more A for a full broadside. A=4 leak/3 fire/3/3. B=5/5/2crew/1. Without even drawing the second A set the Cleopatra strikes, but here is the result A=3/2/0/0.
Cleopatra fires/drew 2 B for a forward arc broadside. B=2/crew.

Battle Two (testing second chit draw)

Same set up as One. Castor and Cleopatra close to center and combat occurs again on Turn 4.

Castor has full broadside. Cleopatra has forward arc broadside. Again there was no A Range combat.
Castor fires/drew 4 A and 4 B. A=1/0/0/0. B=2/0/0/0.
Cleopatra fires/drew 4 leak/0.

On turn 5 Cleopatra rolls to disengage. So using the movement to stationary target rules Ralf has come up with she immediately moves to the nearest edge of the mat.
On turn 6 Cleopatra gets an A range shot on the Castor. 4 mast/0/0.
After six more turns I called it a draw. There didn't seem to be any quick way to catch the Cleopatra, even after multiple scrolling of the ships.

Battle Three (testing the second chit draw again)

Castor and Cleopatra set up as before. They move quickly to the mat center and again the Cleopatra doesn't get off an A Range shot before they close to B Range combat.
On turn 5 Castor has full broadside on Cleopatra. Cleopatra has no shot on the Castor, but is within musketry range.
Castor fires/drew 4 A and 4 B. A=3 fire/2 rudder/0/0. B=4/4 crew/2/2.
Musketry fire. Castor does crew/0 against the Cleopatra. Cleopatra does crew/crew against the Castor.

On turn 6 Cleopatra rolls to disengage, but also has a rear arc broadside on the Castor. Castor turns far enough to use an opposite rear arc broadside on the Cleopatra.

Castor fires/drew 2 A, 2 A and 2 B. A=crew/0. A=crew/0. B=2 crew/0. [Being the opposite side broadside this should have been an A-B double shot draw, but it doesn't impact the final outcome]
Cleopatra fires/drew 1 B. B=2.

On turn 8 Cleopatra fires/drew 1 A Range on the Castor A=3 fire.
On turn 13 Cleopatra fires/drew another 1 A Range on the Castor A=2.
Finally on turn 14 the Castor is able to line up a B Range forward arc broadside.
Caster fires 1 A and 1 B. A=4. B=0. The Cleopatra strikes.
The final battle could have gone on longer, but seeing as the Cleopatra only had one hull box remaining I decided to pursue until I got the shot.

My impressions for both sets of carronaded ship battles is that the up armed ship has to knock the lesser one out on the first combat exchange or it just becomes a somewhat frustrating race. As a player versus the AI you just figure the AI will mess up enough eventually that you'll get the shot you need. A similar battle between two players would probably not go that way. If the Castor could take A Range with bow or stern chasers these battles would end quickly, but that might also help the regularly armed ship as well?

There you have it.

[Diamondback]

Thanks, Jim--this also tells me that carronade-heavy works better on a frigate which has the speed and maneuver to quickly get into range and position, especially in compensating for the lesser displacement available to take the weight of big-bores.

Then again, if I'm reading things right the two 1814 Humphreys 44 derivatives by Doughty had 32# main batteries... that's a freaking BATTLECRUISER for that time, frigate speed and maneuverability with SOL armament. O.O *imagines the whining from some circles at getting curbstomped by USS Guerriere or USS Java*

[Nightmoss]

Thanks, Jim--this also tells me that carronade-heavy works better on a frigate which has the speed and maneuver to quickly get into range and position, especially in compensating for the lesser displacement available to take the weight of big-bores.

Then again, if I'm reading things right the two 1814 Humphreys 44 derivatives by Doughty had 32# main batteries... that's a freaking BATTLECRUISER for that time, frigate speed and maneuverability with SOL armament. O.O *imagines the whining from some circles at getting curbstomped by USS Guerriere or USS Java*

The consistent closing to B Range sure stood out to me.

Even if both ships are player run I still think an initial run to B Range by the regularly gunned smaller ship has a good chance of taking out one or two hulls on the carronaded ship. Then you run away as fast as you can and snipe from A Range (assuming you survive a first A-B or A-A-B broadside from the biggie).