sailing close to the wind

I was thinking about the British first-rates, and the fact that they are pretty much impossible to tack in just one "aback" turn. The only way it might be possible is if you start the maneuver right from on the edge between red and yellow. But with the granularity and uncertainties of the maneuver cards it's pretty hard to arrange that

This doesn't strike me as terribly realistic. It's my impression that experienced sailors had no problem sailing very close to the point of being taken aback--they would edge up to the limit, and if they detected the signs of losing way then they could simply ease off slightly.

So here's the idea: if you don't have any sail/mast/rudder damage (and there's no wind direction change), and you do a "not too sharp" turn (say between veer 4 and 6) which would take you into the red zone, you have the option to rotate the ship around the mainmast so as to angle it on the red/yellow line, and therefore not taken aback

It seems more realistic to me. Having said that, it might make maneuvering too easy; and I'm not sure it adds enough to offset the complexity.

Any thoughts?

Very interesting thoughts. We had to try out a game with that special rule.
I think it puts more "real sailing" into the game.

Fred, this sounds like a good idea for a Captain/Crew card. When we play our solo campaign, for example, we'll set up a schema in which captains/crews gain experience. As they do, they will accrue benefits. This could be one such benefit. This would be similar to Ace abilities in WoG.

I am working on experience and wounded/killed schemas. When I return from Origins, I will post my ideas for feedback. I plan on running several solo campaign ideas past folks at the convention, some of whom have quite a bit of experience with the WoG solo campaigns.

In very Curious to those schemas

Oow sorry! I fully agree on the fact that this rule should be accesible for more experienced captians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

In very Curious to those schemas

---

I think the maneuver charts are in very capable hands given Fred's and your work; I will offer feedback as needed, but I am confident that what you two finalize will be good for our first campaign. I thought it best that I start attending to other rule issues and campaign administration so we'll be ready come July 1. As we play each scenario, we can debrief on our experience and consider improvements. I think we are going to have a fun time, Thijs.

I really have no fout on the fun part!

I have fun playtesting the Rules already!

Maybe you could think about incorporating all the optional rules in the solo set also?

I think we will be ready for 1st of july with a playable set of Rules,
Which can be altered after our first campaign when needed :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

I really have no fout on the fun part!

I have fun playtesting the Rules already!

Maybe you could think about incorporating all the optional rules in the solo set also?

I think we will be ready for 1st of july with a playable set of Rules,
Which can be altered after our first campaign when needed :wink:

---

Yes, we will create a list of optional rules available in the solo rule set. Additionally, folks can generate scenario specific rules as well as campaign specific rules. As we start posting such rules, it will become clearer how all this works together.

I have been pondering how to model sailing close to the wind (Closehauled) in SGN, and here is what I have come up with:

1) A player may check his ship's position relative to the wind at any time (the helmsman is always watching the trim of the sails).
2) If a player plays a blue card that carries the ship into the red zone. If the wind is still on the same side at the end of the move as it was at the start of the move, he does not play a red card on the next move if his next blue card is a 6 or 4, whichever would turn his ship away from the wind.
3) When playing the 6 or 4, the player moves the ship at the next lower sail setting. If the ship is in the orange at the end of the move, it moves at its normal speed on the next turn without any additional crew actions.
4) If the ship is still in the red after the 4 or 6 is played, the next card played is a two hourglass red based on the chosen blue maneuver card.
5) If a red card was played, on the next turn of movement that the ship is no longer in the red, it's movement is stationary (all way has been lost), and it must build speed back up one setting at a time (no crew action needed).

This should give a skilled captain the ability to beat to windward to evade an enemy.

Keep in mind that the ships in the game already sail far closer to the wind than a square rigged ship ever could. AFAIK there is a design intent behind this, so consider that the situation described here - luffing and falling off may have already been accounted for in the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeRuyter

Keep in mind that the ships in the game already sail far closer to the wind than a square rigged ship ever could.

---

You make a good point. My intent was to keep a vessel from suffering too much if they were pinching and overdid it, but perhaps just allowing players to check their orientation to the wind before selecting cards is enough? I got the feeling the rule of only checking during movement was to keep folks from checking every 30 seconds. It seems pretty arbitrary if the playing mat has lines on it. What does AFAIK mean?

Dobbs, AFAIK is an acronym for, "As far as I know". It's one of the few that came around before there even an internet I believe.

As to the original post on this topic I'm not so sure a large rated ship like a 74 would attempt a tacking maneuver if it was sailing close to the wind unless it found itself in a dire situation. Based on my understanding of tacking as presented in, "Seamanship", by Harland a ship in good sailing conditions would want to build speed and room such that when properly handled the ship could swing through the 6 points needed to make a tack without falling off. Now depending on what dire situation the ship might find itself in and need of a tack rather a more easily executed maneuver I'm not so sure it would be sailing close to the wind unless it was a pretty strong breeze.

In terms of the game the situation described could be likely, and the suggested change appears like a reasonable solution. However, as Eric has pointed out above in game terms the problem has already been taken into account in the rules. Players may need to plan their maneuvers with a little more care then their real life counter parts had to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Paul

Based on my understanding of tacking as presented in, "Seamanship", by Harland a ship in good sailing conditions would want to build speed and room such that when properly handled the ship could swing through the 6 points needed to make a tack without falling off.

---

Does your book actually say that a square rigger can tack through 6 points?! A point is 11 and 1/4 degrees, so there are 8 points in 90 degrees. That would make the red zone on the base cards much more accurate than I imagined. I can say from personal experience that my 31' fore and aft'er is hard pressed (read as really improbable) to tack inside of 90 degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

Does your book actually say that a square rigger can tack through 6 points?! A point is 11 and 1/4 degrees, so there are 8 points in 90 degrees. That would make the red zone on the base cards much more accurate than I imagined. I can say from personal experience that my 31' fore and aft'er is hard pressed (read as really improbable) to tack inside of 90 degrees.

---

Here's the quote from the book, "The after yards, which were in the lee of the fore, were swung around, so they were braced up, ready for the new tack, filling once the wind came six points on the "new" weather bow." The diagram shown in the book shows a three masted ship tacking through six points on to her new course. The whole chapter is about tacking and wearing and the reference to swinging through six points is made a couple of times in referring to tacking. So I bow to Mr. Harland's knowledge on the subject, as I'm not an expert sailor by any means.

Aha! So what Mr Harland is saying is that a square rigger tacks through 12 points, six to either side of the wind. That sounds about right. His bit about bracing up has his ship using the mizzen to sail out of the tack, while the foremast is allowed to go back to hep the bow through the wind, and only brought over once the ship is gathering way. Sounds like a good book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

Aha! So what Mr Harland is saying is that a square rigger tacks through 12 points, six to either side of the wind. That sounds about right. His bit about bracing up has his ship using the mizzen to sail out of the tack, while the foremast is allowed to go back to hep the bow through the wind, and only brought over once the ship is gathering way. Sounds like a good book.

---

That's pretty much the way I read it! The book is not what you would call a "page turner", however he does detail the orders and crew actions involved in making these little ships fly over the water, so to speak! He does state that each ship has it's own qualities, as some could spin like a top around their mainmast in a tack, while others would feel like their stern was anchored to the bottom! I only bought the book after years of gaming in the period so I had a better idea of how to make them go, especially when during games there were always "discussions" on one matter or another. So I thought it would be good to have some reference I could fall back on if I offered up a thought.

I teach sailing on modern boats, and it's a hobby of mine to try and understand how they did it in Nelson's time. A friend of mine sails on the Kalmar Nickyl tall ship. I am looking forward to getting his input on movement in SGN (even though our ships ought to handle a little more snappily than his - 1790 vs 1620).

Incidently, the French built a reproduction of the frigate Hermione (the ship that brought Lafayette to the colonies) and it's coming to the Chesapeake Bay this summer. First stop is somewhere around Yorktown?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

Incidently, the French built a reproduction of the frigate Hermione (the ship that brought Lafayette to the colonies) and it's coming to the Chesapeake Bay this summer. First stop is somewhere around Yorktown?...

---

Here's a schedule:

http://www.hermione.com/en/the-hermi...ct/the-voyage/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

Incidently, the French built a reproduction of the frigate Hermione (the ship that brought Lafayette to the colonies) and it's coming to the Chesapeake Bay this summer. First stop is somewhere around Yorktown?...

---

Wow, this is great news! I'll be able to watch her enter the Chesapeake Bay, and then follow her all the way up to Yorktown!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

I teach sailing on modern boats, and it's a hobby of mine to try and understand how they did it in Nelson's time. A friend of mine sails on the Kalmar Nickyl tall ship. I am looking forward to getting his input on movement in SGN (even though our ships ought to handle a little more snappily than his - 1790 vs 1620).

---

I used to sail on Kalmar Nyckel, alas it has been a number of years since I have been onboard :cry:

"Seamanship in the Age of Sail" by Harland was a book recommended to all the sailing crew. I would recommend it to anyone studying square rigged ships. You may be able to get a cheap used copy, mine was $60 new 15 years ago.

Are you in the upper bay area (Havre de Grace, Chestertown)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeRuyter

Are you in the upper bay area (Havre de Grace, Chestertown)?

---

North East, on Turkey Point, how about you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

North East, on Turkey Point, how about you?

---

Nice. My brother lives in North East. I am in Hockessin, north of Newark. Sadly about 30 minutes from the bay. I used to sail on the Delaware river with a club out of New Castle when I lived in Wilmington (and on the KN).

If you are interested in miniatures wargaming in general there is a group near Newark where I occasionally run SoG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeRuyter

Nice. My brother lives in North East. I am in Hockessin, north of Newark. Sadly about 30 minutes from the bay. I used to sail on the Delaware river with a club out of New Castle when I lived in Wilmington (and on the KN).

If you are interested in miniatures wargaming in general there is a group near Newark where I occasionally run SoG.

---

I believe I know the club of which you speak. It's mostly small boats like Flying Scots? It sounds like a fun club, but the Chesapeake is much more fun and lovely for boating.

I'd love to hear more about a gaming group in the area. Keep me informed and I will try to swing by. As the weather improves, my available time shrinks, as I am working and playing on real boats (though I intend to take SoG sailing - I am looking forward to posting pictures of engagements at anchor).

One question? - I wonder how easy it would be for a big ship to tack when using Fighting sail, as opposed to full sail where some more initial speed might be generated??
I definitely am in the camp with people who think a well trained and experienced crew would be better at basic seamanship though! :salute:

Under fighting sails, the courses were furled. The topsails were the most powerful sails on a mast and easier to trim than a course since there was a boom at the top and the bottom. A square rigger may have been more maneuverable with the courses out of the picture, as it would have removed the flutter in the loose foot. You can see the evolution of topsails in paintings. In the 15th and 16th century, the courses were the main driving sails, but as hull design improved and ships could sail closer to the wind, the topsail starts to grow. By the late 19th century, it had grown so large (and crews had shrunk to maximize profit when competing with steam) that they split it into the upper and lower topsail. If you look closely at late 19th century ships, you'll notice that there are now two sails on the fore and main topmast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

Under fighting sails, the courses were furled. The topsails were the most powerful sails on a mast and easier to trim than a course since there was a boom at the top and the bottom. A square rigger may have been more maneuverable with the courses out of the picture, as it would have removed the flutter in the loose foot. You can see the evolution of topsails in paintings. In the 15th and 16th century, the courses were the main driving sails, but as hull design improved and ships could sail closer to the wind, the topsail starts to grow. By the late 19th century, it had grown so large (and crews had shrunk to maximize profit when competing with steam) that they split it into the upper and lower topsail. If you look closely at late 19th century ships, you'll notice that there are now two sails on the fore and main topmast.

---

Thanks for the lesson Dobbs! - I thought someone would understand the science of sailing!
Time for me to creep back into harbour now......:embarass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herkybird

One question? - I wonder how easy it would be for a big ship to tack when using Fighting sail, as opposed to full sail where some more initial speed might be generated??
I definitely am in the camp with people who think a well trained and experienced crew would be better at basic seamanship though! :salute:

---

In a tack, or other turning maneuver, the headsails were used to turn the bow, and the Spanker to turn the stern. The ship was meant to turn about it's mainmast. The topsails (if the ship is in fighting trim) were used to give the ship forward speed through the turn. That's a simplified explanation of how it went. All the square sails were designed to provide forward momentum for the ship.

As the ship entered the tack, the mizzen square sails were braced around to the new tack (the new direction), while the headsails and foremast sails were kept braced and sheeted to the original point of sail. If the ship were able to keep up its momentum, the main would be braced up on the new tack, followed by the fore as the crew was assured that they had passed through the eye of the wind and were not going to go into irons. If momentum was lost, the move went like the two hourglass card, as the ship was blown backwards (but still under control) and the backed headsails and foresails carried the bow over. The rudder direction was reversed (since the boat was moving backwards). The ship was allowed to dip much lower relative to the wind when this happened to assure it would not stall and go into irons as way came back on and it started moving forward again. This is why I suggest losing a speed for each turn spent playing a red card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredmiracle

Having said that, it might make maneuvering too easy; and I'm not sure it adds enough to offset the complexity.

---

If anything, going to weather and tacking feels too easy at the moment. The ships point too high, don't make leeway, and never miss stays. Wearing ship to avoid the risk of getting hung up in stays was a fairly common practice, especially in non-RN/US navies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amara

If anything, going to weather and tacking feels too easy at the moment. The ships point too high, don't make leeway, and never miss stays. Wearing ship to avoid the risk of getting hung up in stays was a fairly common practice, especially in non-RN/US navies.

---

Someone could always offer up base cards with less optimistic attitude to the wind arcs...